1. technology and computing
2. consumer electronics
3. telephones
4. mobile phones
5. smart phones

DOCTORAL THESIS IN MACHINE DESIGN
STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2015
Making innovation
everyone’s business
Using routines and controls
Susanne Nilsson
Doctoral thesis no. 3, 2015
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Industrial Engineering and Management
Department of Machine Design
Division of Integrated Product Development
SE-100 44 Stockholm
1
Making innovation everyone’s business – using routines and controls
© Susanne Nilsson, 2015
TRITA MMK 2015:03
ISSN 1400-1179
ISRN/KTH/MMK/R-15/03-SE
ISBN 978-91-7595-549-0
Printed by: US-AB, Stockholm, Sweden
Academic thesis, which with the approval of Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, will be
presented for public review in fulfillment of the requirements for a Doctorate of
Engineering in Machine Design. The public review will be held at Kungliga Tekniska
Högskolan, Kollegiesalen, Brinellvägen 8, at 10.00 on the 20th of May, 2015.
2
3
Abstract
Contemporary high-technology companies are under pressure to deliver short-term profits and to serve
the market demands for future innovative solutions. An increased interest for alternative innovations such
as new services or business models to be recognized in parallel to new technologies results in that
companies are increasingly attempting to engage all their employees in innovation. This requires attention
to what ways of working need to be changed in order to better support employees in pursuing both
induced and autonomous initiatives i.e. to realize ideas that are aligned to and those that deviate from a
company´s existing strategy and operational models. A key challenge is related to understanding how to
develop organizational routines; how to make use of management controls to support both types of
initiatives despite their different needs and, make the changes in routines and controls become accepted
throughout the organization. Surprisingly few studies deal with understanding how managers or assigned
employees in companies go about to address these issues.
The overall purpose of this thesis is to increase knowledge on how innovation capabilities are built when
involving a broad base of employees in innovation in large and mature organizations. More specifically,
this thesis seeks to understand what characterizes organizational routines and what are the consequences
from using different types of management controls supporting employees in pursuing both induced and
autonomous initiatives. The thesis is made up of four qualitative studies that explore how a planned effort
to deliberately involve a broad base of employees in innovation is performed and experienced by actors
representing different hierarchical levels and functions in two large and world-leading high-technology
companies.
The research shows how involving employees in innovation can be made possible through a conscious and
creative design and usage of routines and controls. The thesis shows that an upper management call for an
increased number of induced and autonomous initiatives results in the use of diverse approaches to
achieve this goal even within the same organization due to personal beliefs and experiences of what
innovation needs and due to a bias towards either personnel or action management controls. Further, a
strong focus on developing organizational routines to initiate innovation was observed at the expense of
routines for selection and development of new initiatives. The studies show also that the outcome is
dominated by incremental process improvements and the underlying reason to this result is discussed in
this thesis.
Four characteristics were identified that distinguish organizational routines used in settings successfully
supporting employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives : i) routines targeting
selection, development and retention in an innovation process, ii) routines were frequently used and were
somewhat linked to other routines, iii) routines to support resource owners and/or customers to come in
direct contact with innovators to evaluate and develop new ideas in an atmosphere characterized by a mix
of playfulness and seriousness were developed and finally iv) a combination of personnel and actions
controls were used. Implications for innovation management, organizational routine and management
control research are discussed.
Finally, a re-thinking and re-design of the performance management is suggested, taking into
consideration the potential in using measurement and goal setting to provide effective means to support
both induced and autonomous initiatives. The studies showed that the use of performance measurement
can act as a trigger for managers to take actions. In addition, the thesis identified the value in improving
the understanding of how result controls, specifically goals, can be formulated and used to stimulate
different types of innovative behaviors.
4
Sammanfattning
Dagens högteknologiska företag är pressade att både leverera kortsiktiga vinster och skapa framtida
innovativa lösningar. Ett ökat intresse för att åstadkomma alternativa innovationer såsom nya tjänster
eller affärsmodeller parallellt med traditionell teknikutveckling gör att dessa företag i allt större
utsträckning försöker engagera alla sina anställda i innovationsarbetet. Detta kräver ökat fokus på vilka
arbetssätt som behöver förändras för att bättre stödja anställda att driva både inducerade och autonoma
initiativ d.v.s. att förverkliga idéer som är i linje med och de som väsentligt avviker från ett företags
befintliga strategier och arbetssätt. En utmaning är att förstå hur man kan utveckla arbetsrutiner och
ledningsverktyg för att stödja båda typerna av initiativ, de olika behov de skapar och att dessutom få de
förändringar som görs i rutiner och verktyg att bli accepterade i hela organisationen. Förvånansvärt få
studier fokuserar på att förstå hur chefer och anställda i företagen går tillväga för att hantera detta.
Det övergripande syftet med denna avhandling är att öka kunskapen om hur innovationsförmåga byggs
upp när ett företag involverar en stor del av sina anställda i innovation i stora etablerade organisationer.
Mer specifikt, syftar anhandlingen till att förstå konsekvenserna när olika typer av ledningskontroller
används för att stödja anställda att genomföra både inducerade och autonoma initiativ. Avhandlingen
består av fyra kvalitativa studier som undersöker hur en planerad insats för att medvetet engagera en stor
del av de anställda i innovation utförs och upplevs av aktörer som representerar olika hierarkiska nivåer
och funktioner i två globala och världsledande högteknologiska företag.
Forskningen visar hur medarbetare kan engageras i innovation genom en medveten och kreativ
utformning och användning av rutiner och kontrollmekanismer. Avhandlingen visar att högsta ledningens
uppmaning till ett ökat antal inducerade och autonoma initiativleder till vitt skilda angreppssätt för att
uppnå samma mål och ett starkt fokus på att utveckla rutiner för att initiera innovation i kombination med
antingen kultur- eller processkontroller. Studierna visar också att det främst skapas inkrementella
innovationer som relaterar till interna processer och orsaker till detta resultat diskuteras i avhandlingen.
Studierna visar på fyra olika karaktäristika som särskiljer organisatoriska rutiner i miljöer där
medarbetare på ett lyckosamt sätt involverats för att driva både inducerade och autonoma initiativ: i)
rutiner för val, utveckling och diffusion av olika initiativ används, ii) rutiner används frekvent och har
vissa kopplingar till andra rutiner, iii) rutiner som skapar möjlighet för resursägare och/eller kunder att
träffas och aktivt utvärdera nya idéer finns på plats och slutligen iv) en kombination av
kontrollmekanismer används. Avhandlingen diskuterar implikationer för tre forskningsområden;
innovationsledning, ledningskontroll samt organisatoriska rutiner.
Slutligen, med utgångspunkt från studierna, föreslås ett nytänkande kring hur mätning och målstyrning
kan utformas för att bättre stödja både inducerade och autonoma initiativ i organisationer. Avhandlingen
visar hur innovationsmätning kan skapa engagerade ledare och på värdet av att utveckla förståelsen för
hur resultatkontroller, särskilt mål, kan utformas och användas för att stimulera olika typer av innovativa
beteenden.
5
Acknowledgements
This thesis investigates how organizational routines and management controls are used to support
employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives in two large high-technology companies.
The research studies began with doubts that I had while I was working with technology development and
innovation management in practice as to whether traditional management tools and routines can provide
valuable support for innovation. Based on the studies presented in this thesis, I do believe they can. In
fact, I think these tools and routines can have an important role to play if we critically and creatively rethink and re-design them.
The writing of this thesis would never have been possible without support from a large number of people.
First of all, I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Sofia Ritzén. Thank you for suggesting and
encouraging me to start a journey that turned out to be a much more radical shift in my professional life
than I ever thought possible. Thank you for being such an inspiring and clear-sighted guide and eminent
intellectual partner. Also, thanks for not fully “taming” me – the confidence you have shown me has been
invaluable to my learning process.
I also want to provide a big thanks to my former managers Magnus Öhman and Torbjörn Andersson who
made it possible for me to become an industrial PhD student in the MedTech company. Thank you also to
all of you in the MedTech company who have contributed with your time and input in my studies. The
same is true for all of the research participants in the TeleCom company; thank you so much for your
generosity.
I am privileged to be part of a truly stimulating academic setting at IPU, the Integrated Product
Development department at KTH. Working is pure pleasure when you are surrounded by so many
passionate and knowledgeable colleagues. Thanks to all of you!
A special thanks to my co-supervisor, Magnus Karlsson for your excellent advices, positive attitude, and
ability to pinpoint exactly where I need to clarify my thoughts and cut my “German” sentences. Professor
Mats Magnusson, thank you for always generously sharing your knowledge and your constructive ideas
(not the least for the kappa in this thesis) and for patiently teaching me what it means to be in the
“business of words”. Professor Margareta Norell Bergendahl, thanks for providing me with great
opportunities to learn what it means to work in academia in a broader sense and for sharing your
outstanding experiences and visions of how academia can create true impacts in our society. Ingrid
Kihlander, thank you for continuous mentoring in “doktorerandet”. Thank you to my closest colleagues by
physical proximity, Katarina Lund Stetler and Carl Wadell – you have been a tremendous support to me
over the years. Also, thank you Gunilla Hugosson, Daniel Sellgren, and Björn Finér for great
administrative assistance.
Being part of the Product Innovation and Engineering research program financed by Vinnova has enabled
me to discuss, and write together with many great colleagues all over Sweden. In particular I would like to
thank Malin Olander Roese for being such an insightful and invigorative colleague and friend – we have
just started our journey together. In addition, a special thanks to Maria Elmqvist and Peter Kesting for
sharing valuable comments on earlier versions of this thesis.
I am lucky to also have a life outside academia and work (although many of you might have doubted this in
the last few years). I want to express my deepest appreciation to my closest and extended family, and all
my friends, neighbors, former colleagues and classmates, very old and very new friends, Swedish and
American.
6
A special thanks to some of you who have supported me with extra mental and physical support during the
writing of this thesis: Ingrid Alveteg for sharing your uncanny insights in our fascinating and infinite
dialogues, the constantly updated futurist Patrik Malmberg for supporting me in my second study, Joakim
Bergström for serving me with excellent contemporary music, Ruth and Jan Lidin for great proofreading
and coaching (even at unholy hours!), and Lena Thelander with her family for reminding me when it is
time for bubbly or for tough workouts. And many thanks to my extra-ordinary female relatives who are
supporting me each in her own unique way; my grandmother Karin, my mother Rita, my mother-in-law
Anita, and my sisters Annelie and Sandra.
Finally, this thesis would not have been possible without the backing of my nearest and dearest Tomas,
Gustaf, and Stella, my biggest supporters and my harshest critics. Thanks to you I have developed not only
as a researcher but as a person. Love you.
Susanne Nilsson
Stockholm, April, 2015
7
List of appended papers
Paper I: Nilsson, S. (2012) Exploring problem finding in a medical device company, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 16. No. 4, pp. 66-78.
Paper II: Nilsson, S. and Ritzén, S. (2014) Exploring the use of innovation performance measurement to
build innovation capability in a medical device company, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 23,
No. 2, pp. 183-198.
Paper III: Ritzén, S., Nilsson, S. and Karlsson, M. P. (2012) Innovation in teams – inducing action by
defining challenges and indicators, Proceedings of the 19th International Product Development,
Management Conference, 17-19 June, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Paper IV: Nilsson, S., Öhlund-Sandström, G., Karlsson, M.P. and Ritzén, S. (2014) Innovating everyday
– making innovation everyone’s business, in review for Technovation. A previous version was published in
the proceedings of the 15th International CINet Conference, 7-9 September, 2014, Budapest, Hungary.
Paper V: Nilsson, S. and Ritzén S. (2014) Selecting and developing organizational routines to support
innovation, in review for International Journal of Innovation Management. A previous version was
published in the proceedings of the 15th International CINet Conference, 7-9 September, 2014, Budapest,
Hungary.
8
List of additional publications
In addition to the appended papers, Susanne Nilsson has been the author or co-author of the publications
below. The publications appear in chronological order.
Ritzén, S., Nilsson, S. (2009) Innovative Teams: Identification of new opportunities. Chapter in
Organising for innovation and growth: Experiences and efforts in ten companies, Editor: Marianne Döös,
Lena Wilhelmson, Vinnova report VR 2009:22, ISBN: 978-91-85959-76-1 pp. 67-78.
Kihlander, I., Nilsson, S., Lund, K., Ritzén, S., and Norell Bergendahl, M. (2011) Planning Industrial PHD
Projects In Practice: Speaking Both 'Academia' and 'Practitionese', Proceedings of the 18th International
Conference on Engineering Design, August 15-18, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nilsson, S., Wallin, J., Benaim, A., Annosi, M.C., Berntsson, R., Ritzén, S. and Magnusson, M. (2012) Rethinking innovation measurement to manage innovation-related dichotomies in practice, Proceedings of
the 13th International CINet Conference, September 17-18, Rome, Italy.
Ritzén, S. and Nilsson, S.(2013) Designing and implementing a method to build innovation capability in
product development teams, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Engineering Design,
August 19-22, Seoul, Korea.
Ritzén, S. and Nilsson, S. (2013) Research Based Experimentation for Increasing Innovation Capability,
Proceedings of the 14th International CINet Conference, September 8-11, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Schenkl, S.A., Elser, H., Nilsson, S., Ölundh-Sandström, G., Mörtl, M., Srinivasan, V.(2014) A method for
assessing the innovativeness of product-service systems, Proceedings of the 13th International Design
Conference, May 19-22, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Schmidt, D.M., Schenkl, S.A., Munkhart, E., Nilsson, S and Moertl, M. (2014) Interview Study: Decisions
and Decision Criteria for Development in Industry, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Engineering, December 9-12, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
9
Table of Contents:
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 4
Sammanfattning ....................................................................................................................5
List of appended papers........................................................................................................ 8
List of additional publications .............................................................................................. 9
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 12
Purpose and scope ............................................................................................................... 14
Previous research ................................................................................................................ 15
Innovation process, capabilities and outcomes ............................................................................................ 15
Variation-selection-development-retention of induced and autonomous initiatives.................................16
The intra-organizational ecology model as a framework for this thesis ..................................................... 18
Characteristics and development of organizational routines .......................................................................19
Routinizing innovation .................................................................................................................................. 20
Creating a structural context supporting both induced and autonomous initiatives ................................ 22
The role of management controls in innovation .......................................................................................... 22
Social actions and social constraints in innovation management .............................................................. 23
Personnel/cultural, action and result management controls ...................................................................... 24
The special case of performance measurement ........................................................................................... 25
Research questions .............................................................................................................. 27
Empirical settings ............................................................................................................... 28
The TeleCom company .................................................................................................................................. 28
The MedTech company ................................................................................................................................. 30
Research approach, design, and methods ...........................................................................32
Research approach ......................................................................................................................................... 32
Collaboration between researchers and practitioners ................................................................................. 32
Principles for serving both research and practice ........................................................................................ 33
Research design ............................................................................................................................................. 34
Research methods .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Reflection on validity, reliability, and generalizability ................................................................................ 40
10
Summary of appended papers ............................................................................................ 43
Analysis and discussion of key contributions from the appended papers........................... 48
The focus on initiating new initiatives .......................................................................................................... 49
Searching for selection, development and retention routines ..................................................................... 51
Diverse approaches based on different perspectives on innovation ........................................................... 52
Comparing the characteristics of organizational routines .......................................................................... 53
Using innovation performance measurement on a continuous basis......................................................... 55
Designing a support for change involving innovation measurement ......................................................... 57
Combining management controls to develop organizational routines ....................................................... 58
Conflicts related to using personnel and action controls when re-designing the structural context........ 59
Goals as triggers and guides .......................................................................................................................... 60
Concluding discussion and implications for research ........................................................ 62
Conclusions and implications for practice .......................................................................... 66
References ........................................................................................................................... 71
Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 83
Interview guides ............................................................................................................................................. 83
11
Introduction
Rapidly changing technologies and competition have put increased pressure on all functions in hightechnology companies. Not the least, their R&D organizations are forced to ensure that the company can
deliver short-term profits and at the same time serve the market demands for innovative solutions that
create increased value (Tushman, Anderson, and O´Reilly, 1997; Boer and Gertsen, 2003; Mc Grath,
2012). The need to be able to come up with a never-ending stream of innovations to rapidly meet
customers’ needs requires increased attention to deploy work practices that will support and facilitate the
innovation process. The focus on reducing R&D expenditures through general cost savings and by taking
actions to increase efficiency, while at the same time retaining flexibility in the product development
process, has been a top priority in the past several decades (Howells, 2008). In addition, the
implementation of flatter and more distributed structures to expand R&D capabilities over wider
geographical areas has required strenuous coordination efforts and high levels of management attention.
As a consequence, the time and energy to also engage in creating conditions conducive to innovation has
often been severely limited. This is particularly the case for currently successful companies where product
plans are often set in terms of what improvements in existing products and market offerings are needed in
the coming years. Thus, despite the awareness of its importance and the access to an abundance of
information and knowledge from popular literature and academic sources on how to make it happen,
building innovation capabilities tends to in many cases end up as an afterthought in the daily work of both
managers and engineers.
Despite the shortcomings described above, being able to create conditions to ensure a continuous stream
of both radical and incremental innovations is far from a neglected part of the top management agenda in
most companies. In survey after survey (e.g. Wagner et al., 2014; Jaruzelski et al., 2011) innovation has
remained among the top priorities and has been identified by their CEOs as crucial for companies’ longterm survival. The most successful companies are found to be characterized by more systematic
approaches to innovation and by being able to support employees to continuously pursue both induced
and autonomous initiatives i.e. initiatives that are aligned and those not aligned to existing strategy and
established operational models respectively as defined by Burgelman (1983). These companies have
succeeded in creating sustained conditions conducive to innovation. In other words, they have built
innovation capabilities, or routinized innovation considering that capabilities can be described as being
composed of a bundle of organizational routines (Nelson and Winter, 1982).
New services and business models as well as organizational and managerial innovations (i.e. the
implementation of changes to the organizational structures or ways to manage the organization’s
resources) have received increased attention as economically viable “alternative” innovation paths for
firms to pursue (Birkenshaw et al., 2011). This challenges the “ownership” of innovation in a company, and
the R&D organization is typically no longer considered the single internal source for innovation. As a
result, many companies have implemented a strategy to involve more and more people in the innovation
process (Björk et al., 2010) by taking employee-driven (Kesting and Ulhoy, 2010) and high-involvement
approaches i.e. every employee is invited and even expected to drive ideas in any area and of any
magnitude of change (Bessant, 2003).
The underlying assumption when companies increasingly go beyond the R&D department and recognize a
broader range of sources for innovation is that knowledge is distributed in formal as well as in informal
networks (Tsoukas, 1996). By systematically making use of as many of these sources as possible the
likelihood of new knowledge to be recognized or created and ultimately transformed to valuable
innovations increases (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Argyris, 2004). The approach to involve a broad base
12
of employees in innovation is in itself not a new strategy. However, the intensity and the degree of
systematics that it is applied with and the emphasis to involve employees to also drive more strategydeviating initiatives can be considered a more recent phenomenon. As a consequence innovation is seen to
increasingly become subject to a larger degree of professionalization and in many companies the
management of innovation begins to form an expert function in itself.
Building the capability for broader involvement in the innovation process in contemporary companies
requires thus getting as many employees as possible to become willing to pursue both induced and
autonomous initiatives with limited time and resources. Making innovation everyone´s business
undoubtedly put increased demands on companies’ ability to recognize and develop supportive work
practices. How companies address this challenge is not well understood from a research perspective.
Innovation management research shows that building innovation capability entails the implementation of
new ways of working which many times largely deviate from the work the majority of employees normally
do (van de Ven et al., 1989; Francis and Bessant, 2005). Traditional management steering and controls
hence need to be adapted or even replaced.
Induced and autonomous initiatives are also shown to require different types of support as a consequence
from the former being able to rely on existing ways of working in contrast to the latter that by definition
concern ideas that deviate from existing strategies or established operational models (Burgelman, 1983;
1991). Literature on corporate entrepreneurship shows that companies aiming for an increased number of
autonomous initiatives to take place need to explore how to build capabilities and re-design its structural
context while ensuring that these changes become accepted throughout the organization (Dess et al.,
2003; Kelley, 2009). A fundamental challenge for organizations with an ambition to increase the number
of both induced and autonomous initiatives is thus to managing the tensions arising from this conflict and
to ensure that the routines and controls used are compatible to support both types of initiatives despite
their different needs. However, surprisingly few studies deal with understanding how actors in companies
go about to develop appropriate organizational routines and management controls.
This thesis targets this gap in literature. By focusing on actions taken on an intra-organizational level this
thesis aims apart from addressing the need in research to generate actionable knowledge for managers and
other actors who have taken the mission voluntarily or as a result from a chain of command to create
conditions within their organization that are conducive to innovation
13
Purpose and scope
The overall purpose of this thesis is to increase knowledge on how innovation capabilities are built when
involving a broad base of employees in innovation in large and mature organizations. More specifically,
this thesis seeks to understand what characterizes organizational routines and what are the consequences
from using different types of management controls supporting employees in pursuing both induced and
autonomous initiatives.
The thesis is made up of four studies that explore how the work to support employees pursuing both
induced and autonomous initiatives is performed and experienced by actors representing different
hierarchical levels and functions in two large and mature high-technology companies, one in the
telecommunication industry (in the thesis referred to as the TeleCom company) and one in the medical
technology industry (in the thesis referred to as the MedTech company). Both companies operate in
markets characterized by a high level of cost pressure, globalization, and demand for innovations. In both
of these companies, managers or assigned employees are expected – with limited resources and on a parttime basis – to involve as many of the organizations’ employees as possible in innovation activities. Thus
the companies were selected because they represent the context that is of interest for the purpose of this
thesis.
The ongoing efforts in the two companies to create conditions conducive to innovation has facilitated the
identification on what deliberate actions have been taken and particularly what changes in ways of
working has been made to support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives.
Under more stable organizational conditions, it is harder to identify the conflicts associated to the
implementation of new work practices than during a planned change when people are struggling to
establish stable patterns for their actions and interactions. In these companies, each unit is mandated to
create conditions conducive to innovation to ensure that ways of working are adapted to specific needs.
This means that managers or employees responsible for this mission in each unit can decide for
themselves what activities to spur, how much time to devote to this work, whom to involve, etc.
Since the researcher was an Industrial PhD student in the MedTech company, a detailed understanding of
the challenges associated to developing organizational routines and the consequences from using
management controls also over time was allowed for in this company. Studies in the TeleCom company
provided opportunities to search for similar and different patterns in the deliberate actions taken across
many different units. It also made a careful comparison possible of what characterizes the use of routines
in units that are more successful in involving a broad base of their employees in innovation to what
characterizes those that are less successful.
This thesis takes the stance that all organizations are more or less innovative, i.e. no clear definition or
objective measure of a successful innovative company exists, and organizations can be found on a scale
from more innovative to less innovative (Dougherty, 1992). Different units in each company are
sometimes referred to as more or less successful in their effort to support innovation. The assessment of
what is considered successful or an effective way of working and the evaluation criteria used are outlined
in relation to each study.
The main focus of the investigations in this thesis is on collective and recurrent work activities i.e. the
organizational routines or routinized elements of work activities that are implemented at the operational
level in the R&D organizations to support employees in the pursuing of both induced and autonomous
initiatives. The reason for focusing on the R&D organizations is because these are still subject to the most
intensive efforts to create conditions conducive to innovation in high-technology companies. Thus the
probability of identifying issues of interest to the purpose of the thesis was increased. Actions taken in
14
other parts of the companies were also studied to increase the understanding of the consequences from
involving employees in innovation outside an R&D organization and to contrast the approaches to those of
the R&D organizations.
Previous research
How companies are building capabilities to support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous
initiatives is a complex area that involves many research fields. Several literature streams are thus
relevant to the purpose of this thesis.
Firstly, understanding the differences between supporting induced and autonomous initiatives is crucial
and not the least the implications when involving a broad base of employees to take initiatives in any area
and any magnitude of change.
Secondly, the literature on organizational routines provides important knowledge related to capabilities
below the strategic level that much of the capability literature deals with. This stream of literature is
consulted to identify what characterizes organizational routines and how these are developed. The not
entirely straightforward relationship between innovation and routines when taking an intra-organizational
perspective of innovation is highlighted as research literature tends to place routine in contrast to
innovation rather than focus on understanding how innovation can become routinized.
Finally, the role of management controls in relation to innovation is discussed and problematized. In a
similar vein to organizational routines, management controls and innovation have a complicated
relationship due to the long history of management controls as traditional tools for constraining and
regulating employee behavior rather than supporting autonomy and experimentation understood as key
features in an innovation process. This single-sided perspective of management controls and innovation is
however being undermined by more recent studies offering a more nuanced picture of their association.
Based in the exposition of literature, a number of areas where more research is needed emerge that have
guided the identification of the research questions in focus for this thesis.
Innovation process, capabilities and outcomes
An innovation process is described in van de Ven’s (1986, p. 590) seminal paper as “the development and
implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within an
institutional context”. His definition readily captures the idea that innovation is foremost a social system
process, i.e. people collectively create innovations by developing new ideas within certain boundaries. In
product innovation studies (e.g. van de Ven et al., 1989; Dougherty and Hardy, 1996; McCarthy et al.,
2006), the development of new business units (Burgelman, 1983) in critical studies of technology and
product development (Latour, 1986; Jones and Stevens, 1999) and in literature on knowledge and
innovation (Murray and Blackman, 2006; Carlile, 2002; Nonaka et al., 2000; Nonaka, 1994) the
innovation process is shown to be nonlinear and multidimensional and to involve complex and dynamic
interactions between actors, organizations, and social environments in order to enable learning and the
accumulation and creation of knowledge. The activities or phases in the innovation process are seen to
occur in parallel, to be integrated rather than to occur sequentially. Issues relating to management’s
attention and willingness to support innovation, and different actors’ ability to understand their role in
relation to the complex innovation process, are considered critical factors that need to be managed also
15
supported by leadership and organizational science studies (Mumford et al., 2002; Mumford and
Licuanan, 2004; Amabile, 2004).
Based in these studies, it has become clear that the innovation process depends on a large number of
interactions and events and that this makes it hard to predict or plan for a very specific outcome. Being
able to develop sustained innovation i.e. to generate multiple new innovations, as strategically necessary
over time, with a reasonable rate of commercial success (Dougherty and Hardy, 1996) require attention to
many aspects and interactions between diverse elements in an organizations structure, processes and
resources. Research show how building capabilities for sustained innovation needs to consider
simultaneously changes in existing structure, management and culture of an organization in order to
stimulate the learning and the knowledge creation and exploitation required (Kogut and Zander, 1992;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This put demands on the actors who have taken the mission to create
conditions within their organization that are conducive to innovation to identify and develop new ways of
working. Ways of working that ultimately can form innovation capabilities. Fulfilling such mission has
been found to be connected to a number of challenges, not the least when a company considers both
incremental and more radical innovation outcomes as strategically desirable (Francis and Bessant, 2005;
O´Connor, 2008).The underlying reason is that the trigger and subsequent development of innovations of
diverse novelty degrees differ as shown in literature on radical innovation (O´Connor and De Martino,
2006) and in the organizational learning literature related to exploration and exploitation (Tushman and
O´Reilly, 1996; March, 1991). Also, since capabilities can be described as being composed of a bundle of
organizational routines (Nelson and Winter, 1982) the new ways of working developed needs to be
routinized. It is important to notice that activities performed in an organization are not dichotomized as
either routines or not, but rather they are routinized to different levels (Nelson and Winter, 1982).
Innovations as outcomes are by definition novel in relation to something that already exists (e.g. an
existing product or process). In the literature, the degree of novelty is often discussed as a scale from
incremental to radical, which describes the perceived magnitude of change and knowledge content in the
innovation (Dewar and Dutton, 1986). For the most radical innovations, this change is not just a matter of
degree of variation but represent a complete deviation from existing structures or a clear departure from
existing practices (Ettlie, 1983) or a company’s strategies (Burgelman, 1983; 1991), value chains
(Christensen, 1997) or business models (Berghman, 2013). Most incremental innovations, on the other
hand, are simple improvements or adjustments to existing products or processes. The more novel an idea
is or how much an idea deviates from existing structures and behaviors, the harder it becomes to predict
the outcome of the innovation process. Thus people who are involved in the pursuit of innovations need to
be prepared to deal with the unknown and “groping in the dark” for extended periods of time (Latour,
1996).
Variation-selection-development-retention of induced and autonomous initiatives
Nevertheless, research has shown that some companies have been more successful in creating conditions
that enable both a steady stream of improvements to existing products and services to ensure short-term
success and the ability to make large-scale strategy transformations in order to adapt and survive in the
long run. Burgelman (1983) showed that the reason behind Intel’s successful adaption and long-term
survival was related to its ability to nurture both induced and autonomous strategic intra-organizational
behavior.
The latter involves initiatives that are outside of an organization’s current strategy or established
operational models that are taken by an employee or group of employees. These initiatives are significantly
different from induced ones when it comes, for instance, to the technology involved and to which customer
16
needs or customer groups are targeted. Autonomous initiatives most often originate when front-line
managers are directly in contact with new technology development or markets, and they are often
triggered by opportunities that are external to the organization. They are made possible by individuals or
small groups that are able to make new combinations of skills and capabilities that at that particular point
in time are not recognized as distinctive or central to the organization. Autonomous initiatives are found to
be critical to the evolution of an organization because these create new competences that might be
combined in unique ways with existing resources and competences. The innovations resulting from an
autonomous initiative might trigger changes or even transformations of a company’s strategy and thus
contribute to necessary adaptations. Strategic transformation or renewal only occurs, however, if the
autonomous initiatives have a successful outcome and become integrated into the company strategy
(Burgelman, 1991; 2002).
Induced initiatives are those individuals or group of individuals take that fit with a company’s current
strategy and typically involve advances in core technologies, new product development, or marketing and
manufacturing approaches of existing product families. These initiatives include the generation and
implementation of ideas in already pre-defined areas or improvement of existing products and processes.
Whether or not an autonomous or induced initiative will lead to a radical or an incremental innovation, or
to any innovation at all, cannot be foreseen because radical and incremental innovations are outcomes and
thus can only be identified in retrospect. Research on radical innovation shows that opportunities for
radical innovation typically emerge from employee engagements and initiatives, including skunk works
(Peters 1997), intrapreneurs (Menzel et al, 2007), and bottom-up approaches (Birkinshaw et al 2011;
Smeds and Haho, 2003) where incremental innovation typically is a result of more traditional control and
planning exercises, top down or “naturally” cumulative changes (Bessant et al., 2005; Tushman and
OReilly, 1996). Induced strategic initiatives aim to implement the objectives and means that are
communicated in the strategic concept, and thus more incremental outcomes are expected. However, a
strategic concept might trigger inconsistent behaviors or behaviors that are in opposition to the intention
of a certain strategy and induced initiatives may form a radical outcome (Burgelman, 1983). In a similar
vein, even though an autonomous initiative is not triggered by a company’s strategy and is exploring novel
opportunities, it is not self-evident that such an initiative will result in a radical output. Internal variations
in behaviors that are simultaneously distributed among several groups and at multiple levels of
management in large organizations and the high rate of failures associated to realizing strategy-deviating
ideas may lead to a less radical outcome. Research has however shown that autonomous initiatives are
more likely to form strategically renewing outcomes i.e. more radical innovations (Burgelman, 1983;
1991).
Organizations are restricted in terms of how many of their initiatives can be supported financially and
resource-wise why the selection of which initiatives will be supported and which will not be is a critical
step in an innovation process. Because induced and autonomous initiatives have very different
characteristics, the selection mechanisms can be expected to be different as well. Burgelman (1983)
showed the importance of internal selection mechanisms for induced initiatives being strongly coupled to
the company’s espoused strategy and vision and to the selective pressures of the environment if they are to
be effective. This means that companies select induced initiatives both with help from a formulated
strategy and by listening to current customer and market needs.
Selection of autonomous initiatives typically involves few rules. Instead, iterative and substantive
interactions between managers and the idea generator or champion of an initiative are used to manage the
highly equivocal inputs that characterize these initiatives. These initiatives are selected without an ex ante
vision in place, and this is why viability of the initiative (both in its internal and external environment)
needs to be shown not only during its initiation and end, but also at each intermediate stage. Over time as
17
an autonomous initiative is further developed and more information becomes available, top management
is able to better evaluate its potential for the organization. “From an evolutionary point of view, only after
[top management] has become reasonably certain that an autonomous initiative is viable can it
legitimately become part of the organizational strategy” (Burgelman, 1991, p. 247). Helping managers to
understand and value autonomous initiatives is thus a true challenge.
The retention process, i.e. the translation, internal diffusion, and learning from autonomous initiatives, is
more or less intertwined with the selection process as it emerges over time. This is in contrast to induced
initiatives where the selection process can be more easily separated from the retention process because
these initiatives have a “template” in the form of an existing strategy or vision to lean on when learning
from their development.
The variation-selection-retention resemblance critical phases or activities in an innovation process as
shown in longitudinal studies such as van de Ven et al., (1998) and Dougherty and Hardy (1996). These
studies provide a nuanced picture of the difficulties that actors involved in innovation work face during
different phases in innovation processes and what challenges this puts on the management of these
processes. Providing “shocks” by enabling potential innovators to come in close contact with the problems
they are expected to solve is found to effectively initiate an innovation process. In addition, there is a
critical need to manage the different perspective on what is considered creating future value held by the
many stakeholders involved in the process over time. Also, to handle the many set-backs and surprises
that emerges in the complex idea development phase. These studies show clearly the large effort required
to ensure that an innovation is understood, valued, and accepted in an organization.
What is clear from the literature is that pursuing autonomous initiatives means going beyond existing
strategies and ways of working, and this requires individuals who are willing to take risks and who has the
drive to realize new ideas despite internal resistance or managers’ inability to understand or value these
initiatives in extended periods of time.
The intra-organizational ecology model as a framework for this thesis
Burgelmans (1991) intra-organizational model understanding organizations as an “ecology of initiatives”
constitutes a relevant framework for the study of companies that have an explicit ambition to involve a
broad base of their employees to realize new ideas. The path to strategic renewal in this model is through
the exploitation of autonomous initiatives generated by employees (in the original model it was front-line
managers who were considered to have the most relevant knowledge). Having the innovation strategy to
broadening the base of employees to drive ideas in any area and of any magnitude of change can thus be
viewed as top management desire to increase the number and sources of both induced and autonomous
initiatives in the organization as a way to improve the opportunities for both short-term profit and
strategic renewal.
It is important to notice that Burgelman´s intra-organizational model differs in relation to other more
commonly discussed evolutionary models in literature (e.g. Nelson and Winter, 1982); the variations
created in the intra-organizational model are not something that is completely random or a result from
adaption of external forces as assumed in the classical evolutionary models. The actors in a company are
considered taking a much more active role. Hence, the intra organizational model is applicable when
studying what actors do to deliberately support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous
initiatives in practice. Burgelman (1983; 1991) view a company´s strategy as an emergent process shaped
by many actors whose actions are enabled and constrained by a process of variation-selection-retention
and by modifying the company’s internal capabilities and structural context. While Burgleman (1983,
1991) is rather detailed about what is defining the structural context in a company and its role in his intra-
18
organizational model, he is far less outspoken about the role of capabilities and how these are modified to
support different types of initiatives. Literature on corporate entrepreneurship highlights that companies
aiming for an increased number of autonomous initiatives to survive need to explore how to build
capabilities ensuring that these changes become accepted throughout the organization (Dess et al., 2003).
When a company has the ambition to involve a broad base of employees to pursue both induced and
autonomous initiatives, this undoubtedly requires an organization to pay attention to the development of
new ways of organizing and working intra-organizationally. Ultimately, some of these new ways of working
will form bundle of organizational routines that will build valuable innovation capabilities. What actions
are taken and the consequences from different approaches to reach this ambition is yet scarcely
empirically investigated.
Characteristics and development of organizational routines
Creating and implementing new ways of working is one approach to changing organizations. If
organizational members repeatedly engage in their practices, then more stable work processes such as
organizational routines – i.e. repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions carried out by
multiple actors as defined by Feldman and Pentland (2003) – can be developed. This means that routines
are collective phenomena in contrast to skills or habits that can be used to describe recurrent activities
performed by single individuals (Hodgson and Knudsen, 2003). Over time, this leads to the new work
practices becoming embedded within the organization, and ultimately the acquisition of these routines
leads to strategically important capabilities for a company (Nelson and Winter, 1982). These capabilities
are important for a company because they constitute a competitive advantage by being more difficult to
copy and to transfer across contexts (Grant, 1991).Routines are attractive as these make better use of
humans’ limited attention capacity because people tend to focus on non-routine events and to only focus
semi-consciously on recurring events. Routines also store knowledge, particularly aspects of tacit and
collectively held knowledge (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Zollo and Winter, 2002; Teece et al., 1997). This
makes companies less dependent on single individuals because these routines enable new organizational
members to learn more quickly what activities or rules are more successful than others in certain
situations (Grant, 1991; March, 1991).
Three dimensions of routines have emerged as critical in empirical studies: the frequency of repetition, the
regularity of the frequency, and time pressure. A higher frequency of recurrence supports the routinization
of activities, and for routines that have recently been acquired repetition prevents them from decaying or
falling apart (Weick, 1993). A greater number of interruptions in a process will encourage a search for, or
an adoption of, a routine from external rather than internal sources (Zellmer-Bruhn, 2003), and increased
time pressure increases the likelihood of routines being used even if they had previously been considered
inadequate in a certain situation (Garapin and Hollard, 1999; Betsch et al, 1998). It has been shown that it
is not necessarily the tacitness of the routines that allows firms to capture value from them, but rather the
ongoing use of them (Becker, 2004).
Routines are specific to a particular context and are not easily transferred between contexts because
essential parts of a routine might not be easily separated from more peripheral parts (Winter and
Szulanski, 2001; Teece et al., 1997) and because there are often a large number of tacit components
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) or inarticulate procedural knowledge (Cohen and Bacdayan, 1994) involved.
There can thus only exist local “best practices”. As a consequence, routines need to, and will always be,
incompletely specified and open to interpretations, and this will lead to heterogeneity of work practices
across time and space within an organization (Narduzzo et al. 2000). Routines are interlinked with other
structures – such as technology, culture (Howard-Grenville, 2005), patterns of coordination, relationships
between groups (Feldman, 2000), and artifacts (Hales and Tidd, 2009; D´Addario, 2008). This can lead
19
to change (Feldman, 2000), but these structures can also become barriers and make it difficult for the
actors to alter them (Howard-Grenville, 2005). Organizational routines can thus act as a vehicle for
change and development in a company and are thus a suitable subject for researchers with an interest in
change management and how companies build up new capabilities.
Actors’ aspiration levels, i.e. the particular performance levels an actor perceives as adequate and hopes to
achieve, have been shown to be an important trigger or initiator for a routine (Levinthal and March, 1981).
External cues like other routines and feedback, especially negative feedback, are powerful triggers of
routines (Betch et al., 1998). The development of routines is dependent on their history, and routines
change in a path-dependent (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Teece et al., 1997) and often incremental
(Feldman, 2000, 2003) manner. Also, it is often difficult to trace the underlying reason for why a certain
routine exists because “the experiential lessons of history are captured by routines in a way that makes the
lessons but not the history accessible to organizations and organizational members who have not
themselves experienced the history” (Levitt and March, 1988;320). In empirical studies, routines are often
found to be developed “as a result of participant’s reflections on and reactions to various outcomes of
previous iterations of the routine” (Feldman, 2000). Routines are thus found to be developed when people
make use of the routine in practice and reflect about its usefulness (Feldman, 2000).
A number of artifacts are also typically involved in the course of a routine, including guidelines, templates,
IT tools, maps, objects, etc. The artifacts associated with a routine can play a more or less important role in
motivating and guiding actors when carrying out a routine either as proxies for the cognitive aspect of the
routine or as embodiments of certain views of preferred ways of working (Pentland and Feldman, 2005;
D’Adderio, 2008). However, the roles of artifacts in routines are not well understood (Labatut et al., 2012).
A thorough mapping of routines would thus include the documents and other artifacts.
Routinizing innovation
The literature on routines makes a distinction between operating routines – or first-order routines – that
involve the execution of known procedures that have the purpose of generating revenue and search – or
second-order routines - that aim to make changes in the operating routines with the purpose of creating
future profits (Nelson and Winter, 1982). Search routines to generate new opportunities can involve, for
example, scanning and interpreting the environment, making use of customers and other external actors,
and making use of employees’ creativity; activities that can also be found in an innovation process.
Second-order routines form the basis for the firm’s dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt
and Martin, 2000; Zollo and Winter, 2002) i.e. the managerial and organizational capabilities that change
and renew the stock of resources and capabilities in companies to adopt to or even change its external
environment over time. Innovation capabilities may hence be argued to constitute capabilities that also
can form important dynamic capabilities. Not the least organizational routines where search and
recognition or creation of new opportunities is in focus (Teece, 2007).
Routines are often strongly associated with stability and inflexibility or even with causing organizational
inertness, and thus they are often understood as in conflict with the ability to be innovative, i.e. the need
for dynamicity, flexibility, and creativity. Also, innovation research literature has to a large extent been
focused on investigating how company´s normal operations routines with its focus on increasing efficiency
in existing processes create barriers to innovation and has sought to understand how innovation can thrive
in spite of a company’s organizational routines (Dougherty, 1992; Tushman and O´Reilly, 1996).
Innovation activities or exploration is understood as being in direct conflict with efficiency activities or
exploitation referring to the organizational learning literature (March, 1991). The implication is that
organizational routines need to be overcome in order for innovation to flourish. This is typically suggested
20
to be dealt with through the use of different ambidextrous solutions where Tushman and O´Reilly (1996)
structural separation (i.e. separation of explorative from exploitative tasks by organizational design) is one
of the most common concept discussed in literature. In this thesis the conflict between innovation and
efficiency routines is however not in focus. The target for investigation is instead to understand how to
routinize innovation in order to build valuable innovation capabilities. Building innovation capabilities, is
understood as the development of a bundle of organizational routines to support employees in pursuing
both induced and autonomous innovation. Innovation in the organizational routine literature (e.g. Nelson
and Winter, 1982; Zollo and Winter, 2002) has traditionally been treated as a high-level second order
routine (mostly innovation has been equating R&D or product development) and seldom as a more
nuanced operational routine e.g. as a bunch of different routines targeting variation- selectiondevelopment -retention on an operational level as in this thesis. This approach is thus considered to
complement previous research and to have the potential to generate some new insights of the challenges
facing actors who have taken on the mission to create conditions conducive to innovation in an
organization.
Routines are in everyday talk understood as stable work process patterns with the purpose of doing the
same thing in the same way over and over again. Routines are thus intuitively not expected to deliberately
support the creation of variations in the outcome. Also, in practice people are much more accustomed to
associate routines with aim for targets such as increased quality and streamlining or standardizing of
processes (e.g. decreased variations) rather than innovativeness and the creation of work routines
enabling increased variations. Organizational routines are nevertheless in more recent and empiricalbased research considered as having both a stable and a changing character; “they come about only
through being performed by actors and they hold the seeds to their own continuity or change” (Feldman
and Pentland, 2003). Research has shown that routines are rather conscious accomplishments which are
often changeable, dynamic, generative, and open to variations, thus there will naturally be differences
when participants carry out the routine in practice or choose to alter it (Feldman and Pentland, 2003).
Routines are not just followed or reproduced, and both the stable and changing character of routines can
act as a vehicle for change and development in a company. The studies performed in this field have
however targeted administrative first-order routines (Feldman, 2000). The question thus arises if the
models developed in this literature are valid also for second-order routines.
Nonaka and Toyama (2002) and Nonaka et al. (2006) concept of “creative routines”, based in their studies
of successful Japanese high-technology companies, suggest that it is possible to routinize innovation in a
way so that the routines in use take advantage of recurrent and more stable work patterns without
sacrificing the ability to continue to produce outcome variations. These routines are able to synthesize the
efficiency of “traditional” routines with creativity to ensure continuous knowledge creation. Creative
routines” involves the use of a knowledge vision, the development of spaces in organizations where certain
types of dialogues are nurtured along with the development of more systematic knowledge management
processes (Nonaka and Toyama, 2002). Knowledge creation is guided through the synthesis of
contradictions which is achieved using dialogues where people openly share their opinions and beliefs and
feedback from actions taken are incorporated in the discussions. This research indicates that it is possible
to deliberately design routines that are supportive also for autonomous initiatives. Research also shows,
that taking actions to stimulate deliberate learning (Zollo and Winter, 2002) is more effective than semiautomatic experience accumulation (Zollo and Singh, 2004) even when companies are managing new
territories or striving to radically change strategies (Lenox and King, 2004). Deliberate learning focuses on
the cognitive and conscious aspects of the process in order to understand the causalities between practices
and outcomes and uses interventions such as experiments or training (Arthur and Huntley, 2005;
Nembhard et al., 2014).
21
Creating a structural context supporting both induced and autonomous initiatives
Besides bringing up the importance in paying attention to internal capabilities, however, without
specifying what these implies, Burgelman (1983; 1991) showed how the evolution of induced and
autonomous initiatives is shaped and determined by the structural and strategic context in an
organization. The structural context shapes the communication in the organization and involves “various
organizational and administrative mechanisms such as organizational architecture, information and
measurements systems, and reward and punishing systems” (Noda and Bower, 1996: 160) and is
influenced by values, beliefs, goals, and how top management understand current concept of corporate
strategy (Noda and Bower, 1996). Middle managers play a crucial role in forming the structural context by
them negotiating with top managers on what specific mechanisms to be used.
The strategic context is described as a sociopolitical or micro-political process through which middle
managers attempt to convince or persuade top management about the value of certain (strategy-deviating)
autonomous initiatives and why the current strategy needs to be changed (Noda and Bower, 1996). The
strategic context involves few rules and many informal interactions (Burgelman, 1983; 1991) and even
though top management cannot directly steer this context it can indirectly influence it by creating
conditions allowing for the development of autonomous initiatives.
The various organizational and administrative mechanisms defining the structural context as defined by
Noda and Bower (1996) are in this thesis proposed to equating an organizations bundle or combination of
management controls. The use of organizational structures, measurement, rewards systems and goals are
all examples of formal management control systems while influencing through values and norms are
examples of informal management controls. Management controls are managers most commonly used
tools to influence people’s minds and behaviors in order to achieve organizational objectives, and ensuring
that company strategies are implemented as intended (Anthony, 1988; Ouchi, 1977). Following Malmi and
Brown (2008), management controls are “those systems, rules, practices, values and other activities that
management put in place in order to direct employee behavior”. The structural context can hence be
described as require a re-designing of management controls when an organization has the ambition to
involve a broad base of employees to pursue both autonomous and induced initiatives.
The role of management controls in innovation
Managers in practice make use of management controls for coordinative and traditional steering purposes
alone and tend to be reluctant in using these in relation to innovation (Henri, 2006). By steering and
following-up on people’s behavior, management controls can lead to more coordinated actions in an
organization that help to minimize the risks failure and maximize the efficiency in reaching the
organization’s goals. This is seen to act as a barrier for the increased risk-taking and experimental attitude
that is needed to support innovation. In addition, research is dominated by studies of management
controls with a more traditional coercively control purpose (Malmi and Brown, 2008). Only using controls
coercively rather than as a way to empower employees, is found to restrict their potential to enable
innovative behaviors (Ahrens and Chapman, 2004; Henri, 2006). Based on the search for understanding
how managers balance innovation and control, Simons (1995) developed an understanding of innovation
as having a need for a larger degree of flexibility compared to more administrative processes. Simons
(1995) showed that control systems need to be adaptable both to the company’s strategies as well as to
strategies emerging from experimentations and initiatives by employees. This is in line with the
Burgelman (1983) model where both employees’ initiatives and experimentation (e.g. autonomous
initiatives) and top managers’ strategies (e.g. induced initiatives) need to be managed simultaneously.
Simons (1995) also embraces the idea that management is the art of integrating conflicting demands or
tensions, for instance, between freedom and constraint or between experimentation and efficiency that are
22
always present within organizations. The design of control systems needs to take these tensions into
consideration as the basis for creating organizational capabilities.
Interestingly, more recent research shows that management controls increasingly can be used not only for
constraining purposes but also to enable the innovative behaviors of creativity and experimentation (e.g.
Davila and Oyon, 2009; Adler and Chen, 2011). The role of management controls in relation to creating
variations has in more recent studies become a target of more systematic analysis. These studies indicate
that management controls might be sufficiently flexible and dynamic to be able to adapt to the surprises
created by innovation (Davila et al., 2006). Adler and Chang (2011) showed how the use of rational
controls was able to provide a dynamic and flexible framework for people involved in creative large-scale
product innovation teamwork. When successfully combined, the use of constraining and enabling controls
has been shown to be able to create dynamic tensions that can produce unique capabilities and
competitive advantages (Henri, 2006; Widener, 2007). In addition to the design, how management
controls are used is as important to consider. An interactive use of controls, i.e. where managers involve
themselves together with employees in the interpretation of data, has been found to have the potential to
create unique and important capabilities if properly managed (Simons, 1995). Such use, however, has also
been shown to be particularly problematic to implement and to manage (Mundy, 2010).
Social actions and social constraints in innovation management
Another reason to the reluctance of using management controls in relation to innovation in practice may
be due to the infelicitous division in different researchers’ preferences between social actions and social
constraints (Giddens, 1982) in the innovation management literature (Dougherty, 2008). Socialconstraint approaches emphasize direct managerial actions such as boundaries and reward mechanisms
because these approaches take as their basis that people have limited cognitive abilities within a bounded
rationality (March and Simon, 1958) and that structures built into organizations and society further
constrain possible actions. Thus vigorous actions are required to enable social action (Leonard, 1998).
Social action approaches, on the other hand, theorize that people have immense social competence that
makes coordination less needed and less costly (Giddens, 1982). Improvisation rather than authority
drives behavior and organizational designs based on social action theory, and thus there is an emphasis on
indirect managerial actions and concepts such as emergence, freedom, and self-fulfillment. Dougherty
(2008) proposed that the different views on what innovation is in need of creates conflicting advice when
it comes to the managerial implications suggested in the literature, and this might be one important
underlying cause for why companies are seen to struggle to become innovative despite the vast amount of
knowledge available on what is required.
Dougherty (2008) argues for the need to make use of both direct and indirect actions to successfully
support innovation. The reason for this is that social action and constraint are mutually constitutive; social
action produces and reproduces social constraints while constraints enable action (Giddens 1982; Barley
1986; Orlikowski 1992). Dougherty (2008) suggests alternate organizational “construction principles”
when building innovative organizations that take both social constraint and action into consideration and
that reflect the fact that people’s bounded rationality and social competence are situationally enacted, i.e.
they are context dependent. Both social action and constraint are needed. This is in line with research
concerned with understanding the role of structure in organizations. Studies show that high performing
organizations are using a moderate amount of structure to support innovation (Brown and Eisenhardt,
1997) and improvisation (Weick, 1998; Feldman and Pentland, 2003). Too many rules constrain
innovation and improvisation but too few rules lead to chaos in product innovation (Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1997). Understanding the role of management control in enabling both social action and social
23
constraints emerge as a crucial when developing a structural context supporting employees in pursuing
both induced and autonomous initiatives.
Personnel/cultural, action and result management controls
There are several ways to categorize different types of management controls. Distinguishing between
input, behavior, and output is one of the most traditional ways to discuss management controls (Ouchi,
1977). Merchant (1985) developed Ouchi´s categorization further and re-named the controls according to
the target for the control in use; personnel/cultural, action and result control respectively. These
categories are also used in this thesis. Management control research has shown that the target of controls
and how tight it is designed (i.e. the degree of specificity), will have an impact.
Personnel/cultural controls aim to influence conditions to enable a certain desired behavior and are
controls that build on employees natural tendencies to control or motivate themselves (Merchant,1985).
For example, in an R&D department this might be related to creating the right environment by building
the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are desired (Mintzberg, 1983). Under conditions of high
uncertainty, experiential learning such as on the job training, job rotation, and mentoring becomes a
crucial part of the personnel controls in use (Ouchi 1979; Cardinal 2001). Facilitate the use of diverse
knowledge (Snell and Youndt, 1995; Cardinal, 2001) and allowing sharing and distribution of information
about company strategies and customer and market needs (Kanter, 1983) are important characteristics of
an environment that is supportive of innovation or when task uncertainty is high. Stimulating the tacit
dimension of knowledge i.e. knowledge that is not easily expressed or documented (Polanski, 1967) is
found to be particularly supportive for innovation. This is found to be facilitated through face-to-face
meetings where dialogues are encouraged and basic assumptions are challenged (von Krogh et al., 2000),
by using strategic plays (Roos and Statler, 2004) or strategic dialogues (Dougherty and Hardy, 1996) or by
creating conditions of creative chaos, redundancy of information, and requisite variety referring to Nonaka
(1994). Enabling a creative climate characterized by a high level of trust (Ekvall, 1996), encouraging new
ideas (Damanpour, 1991), and accepting risk taking and conflicts (Ekvall, 1996; King, 1992; West and
Anderson, 1992) have been shown in a large number of studies to support innovation. Other important
factors involve a focus on employee’s tasks and intrinsic motivation and expertise development (Amabile,
1988), creating conditions for experimentation and collaboration (Damanpour, 1991; Thomke, 2001;
Burgelman and Sayles, 1986) as well as tolerance of failed ideas (Madjar et al., 2002). Finally, making sure
time and money dedicated to innovation is enabled has been shown to be crucial (Mumford and Licuanan,
2004). Organizational science innovation research makes a strong association between innovation and
creativity (e.g. Amabile, 1996; Mumford, 2002) and tend to prescribes the use of indirect managerial
actions or personnel rather than direct.
Action control is a direct control of people’s behaviors through the use of different guiding or monitoring
devices (Eisenhardt, 1985; Ouchi, 1979). Controls that target a direct regulation of activities usually in the
form of procedures and step-by-step instructions have been the type of management control subject to the
most intense research (Barker, 1993). Despite the number of studies on action controls influence on
innovation, the results are far from consistent (Damanour, 1991). Formal procedures have for instance
been shown to support radical innovation in high-technology settings (Jelinek and Schoonhoven, 1990;
Adler and Borys, 1996) People in these organizations perceive structures and processes as “tools” rather
than as fixed frames or as ways for managers to directly control behavior. Damanpour’s (1991) metaanalytic review demonstrates that formalization is positively related to product innovation (although no
separation was made between radical and incremental innovation). On the other hand, formalization is in
other studies found to restrict experimentation (March and Simon 1958), people’s deviation from
established behavioral patterns (Weick, 1979), and radical innovation (Dewar and Dutton 1986). For more
24
incremental innovation, formalization can improve information-processing efficiency, and thus the
realization of the innovation. Increased regulation enhances the implementation of innovation but
hampers the generation of new ideas and the creativity stages of innovation (Amabile, 1998). Using action
controls has also been found to have a neutral role in projects aiming for strategic renewal (Poskela and
Martinsuo, 2009).
Result controls are made by defining and setting the dimensions of expected results and by monitoring the
alignment of the output with the set standards as well as by providing incentives (Merchant, 1985).
Identifying and communicating targets, goals, and visions are typical results controls. Instead of directly
controlling behaviors, it strives to communicate and capture a pre-defined desired result within a certain
time period. The use of result controls is, and in a similar vein as action controls, found to show conflicting
results in relation to innovation. It is also the least investigated type of management controls in relation to
innovation (Cardinal, 2001). By making use of result controls, employees receive a considerable amount of
freedom and autonomy in achieving the goals and this is expected to facilitate creativity and novelty (Zollo
and Winter, 2002). The use of so-called “creativity goals” (goals that encourage creative behavior) have
been found to have a positive effect on creative behavior (Shalley, 1991) and Cardinal (2001) showed that
the use of result controls resulted in an enhancement of both radical and incremental innovation. A shared
vision has been shown to significantly influence both radical and incremental innovations in teams as
organizations with a high level of shared vision, tend to make individuals more likely to contribute with
their ideas and knowledge (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). One common approach in top innovating companies
studied was their use of a few broad challenging goals using a few indicators related to timing, cost, and
performance (Quinn, 1985). Over time the goals become more specific although still allowing many
different options to be evaluated. Pursuing goals that are seemingly impossible so called stretch goals
might stimulate radically new approaches but may also lead to less desirable behaviors (Sitkin et al., 2011).
The clarity of organizational goals has been found to be an effective antecedent to innovation outcomes
(Patterson et al., 2005). In contrast, Nonaka (1994) and Nonaka and Toyama (2002) highlighted the use of
an ambiguous vision involving contradictory elements as crucial for creating new knowledge. Companies
that emphasize quantifiable outputs and more narrow and specific goals tend to support only incremental
and short-term initiatives with more predictable outcomes and faster returns (Ouchi 1977; Merchant,
1985). Also, frequent monitoring will make people in an organization avoid making mistakes and
encourage them to “play it safe” and to focus on small improvements rather than pursuing more
autonomous initiatives (Burgelman and Sayles 1986, Sitkin 1992), and it might discourage
experimentation in order to “look good” (Merchant 1985). This makes the design of appropriate result
controls a true challenge in a complex and dynamic innovation process.
More often than not, management controls are studied isolated rather than in combination. Particularly,
few studies investigate the combination of personnel/cultural controls and action or result controls
(Alvesson and Kärreman, 2004; Malmi and Borown, 2008). The studies that have investigated the
combination of these types of controls indicate the potential in further understanding their impact.
Alvesson and Kärreman (2004) showed how such combination of controls build on each other rather than
simply compensate each other. Because a specific interest of this thesis is to provide knowledge about the
consequences from using management controls or create the structural context referring to Burgelman
(1983, 1991) to better support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives,
investigating different types of management controls emerge as vital.
The special case of performance measurement
One of the most common management control systems in use in contemporary companies is performance
measurement. Performance measurement consists of a set of metrics used to quantify both the efficiency
and effectiveness of actions (Neely et al., 2000). The function of performance measurement is two-fold.
First, it provides feedback on the outcome of actions to support learning. Second, it uses and
25
communicates selected performance metrics as a way of implementing a strategy or a preferred behavior
within the organization, i.e. it is a feed-forward process. The metrics or indicators selected can thus be of
very different kinds depending on the purpose of the measurement. For example, such metrics might
include key success factors as a way to communicate “best practices”, metrics for detection of deviations
from a performance goal, or metrics to modify or learn from actions within a process (Lebas, 1995). A
performance measurement system can hence be considered involve both action and result controls. Since
the use of performance measurement formed a central part of the deliberate effort to build innovation
capabilities in the MedTech company studied in this thesis, an in-depth study of the consequences from
using action and result controls to support of employees to pursue both induced and autonomous
initiatives was enabled.
Using measurement on a continuous basis is a familiar approach in industry and has been shown to both
reinforce existing ways of working and to signal a need to challenge the status quo and inform goal setting
within an organization (Widener, 2007; Grafton et al., 2010; Kaplan and Norton, 1996). Furthermore, the
use of performance measurement has been found to stimulate the generation and implementation of
creative ideas, to motivate and inspire new behaviors (Simons, 1990; Simons, 1995; Kaplan and Norton,
1982), to support team autonomy (Atkinson, 1999), and to affect managerial decision-making and to
influence perceptions of the positioning of the organization in its competitive environment (Simons,
1990). Such measurements have also been found to help managers develop a mental representation of the
business and to provide goal and process clarity as well as to encourage extensive scanning behavior
(Gimbert et al., 2010).
The use of performance measurement needs careful attention because despite its potential to facilitate
learning and change, measurement is a problematic area for companies and its influence on performance
has shown contradictory results (Neely, 2006; Bourne, 2002; Micheli and Manzoni, 2010). One reason for
such contradictions put forward in research is the close linkage of performance measurement to a number
of contextual and environmental factors such as a company’s culture, reward system, and leadership
(Henri, 2006). Simply implementing new metrics is not sufficient, and several other areas need to be
taken into consideration. Also, companies do, in general, tend to become set in their ways of measurement
once a system has been implemented, so even if new metrics are supplemented, the old ones are not
discarded and this can lead to an overload of metrics (Neely, 2005).
Measuring in the context of innovation is considered particularly challenging because the innovation
process is complex, multidimensional, and unpredictable; the many functions and stakeholders involved
will make the set-up of clear goals and the identification of relevant indicators a true challenge (Adams et
al., 2006; Smith, 2005). Furthermore, the difficulties of analyzing the impact of innovations due to the
time lag between an innovation and its impact (a lag of several years or even decades) are an additional
issue. Moreover, many of the key parameters for understanding innovation are intangibles and thus not
easily observed. This means that the collection of data needs to be performed using many different means,
including rather advanced and time-consuming analyses that do not readily support the practical needs of
more easily performed measurement procedures (Smith, 2005). As a result, it has been found that
companies, despite the potential of measurement, seldom track the information required to evaluate and
assess innovation in a systematic way (Adams et al., 2006; Tidd, 2001). In addition, using measurement
has been shown to be particularly problematic in R&D settings due to the long tradition of measurement
as a device to control costs and processes rather than to support learning and motivation (Henri, 2006).
R&D personnel are known to be sensitive to the use of control tools in general and to prefer more
normative and social controls such as building their practices on certain values and norms (Tushman and
OReilly, 1996). These values have often been found to be based on their profession rather than on the
company’s values.
26
This challenging situation has, however, not stopped researchers in the operational, management, and
accounting fields from proposing and developing a large number of conceptual models for R&D and
innovation performance management. The majority of these models focus on describing the most
important areas to consider and provide suggestions on metrics, including the process for analyzing and
using the measures with the aim of improving performance, managing R&D (Brown and Svenson, 1998;
Kerssens-van Drongelen and Bilderbeek, 1999; Ojanen and Vuola, 2006; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1986),
general innovation management (Tidd, 2001; Adams et al., 2006; Tang, 1998)) and innovation audits
(Chiesa, Coughlan and Voss, 1996; Hallgren, 2009).
Compared to the large number of conceptual innovation performance measurement models, the number
of empirical studies on the use of innovation measurement is quite small. This is particularly the case for
the role that measurement plays in the work to create conditions to support innovation. The majority of
empirical studies on innovation measurement have investigated the practical use of diagnostic innovation
audits (e.g. Chiesa et al., 1996; Hallgren, 2009) and not the impact from using innovation measurement to
continuously evaluate and measure innovation activities in practice. This is despite an understanding of
the value of using measurement to support daily work and learning and to determine whether certain
actions lead to improvements or not.
Research questions
There is a pressing need in contemporary organizations to understand how to deliberately build
innovation capabilities to involve a broad base of employees in innovation. In addition, there is a need in
research to increase knowledge on how organizational capabilities to support employees in pursuing both
induced and autonomous initiatives are built on an operational level and the role of management controls
in this effort. Given the identified needs in practice and research the following research questions are
addressed in order to be able to fulfill the purpose of this thesis:
RQ1: What characterizes the use of organizational routines to support employees in pursuing both
induced and autonomous initiatives?
RQ2: What are the consequences from making use of different types of management controls to support
employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives?
RQ3: How are organizational routines in settings that successfully support employees in pursuing both
induced and autonomous initiatives different from organizational routines in settings where such support
is not found?
27
Empirical settings
The studies in this thesis were performed in two companies. Both companies are part of what can be
considered to be high-technology or knowledge-intense industries, namely advanced medical technology
and telecommunications. These industries have many similarities, but the studied companies are subject
to different demands. Innovations in both companies have traditionally been based on new technologies,
and their products have over the years become increasingly complex and are typically composed of
electronic, mechanical, and software components. Software components are particularly important and
are responsible for adding much of the new functionality available in complex products (Broy, 2005). The
service content is also rapidly increasing, and the value in identifying strategic collaborations and
partnerships between customers and other actors is significant. In addition, the global distribution of
different functions in the companies in order to come closer to targeted markets and to facilitate the access
to qualified personnel has resulted in high levels of organizational complexity. This reflects a general trend
in these industries (Howells, 2008).
Despite innovation being at the heart of the strategies in these industries, there is also a strong focus on
keeping costs down. The medical technology industry is increasingly becoming more focused on costs
savings because it must organize and manage for less generous revenues as a consequence of health
providers’ tighter cost controls and increasing reluctance to pay for more novel and, therefore, more
expensive technologies. Because clinical efficacy and patient safety is and will remain crucial, and because
the ability to make accurate efficiency calculations within health care is severely limited, understanding
how to develop the business strategies in medical device companies is far from straightforward. In parallel,
the fear of new entrants with disruptive technologies keeps the mature companies on their toes. Increased
regulatory scrutiny has, however, made it increasingly difficult for any actor in the market to receive
product approval, and this has resulted in the need to identify alternative ways of working. Therefore, the
product cycles (even for “simple” software updates) are far longer compared to the telecommunication
industry.
The telecommunication business with its deregulated market has for longer periods of time compared to
the medical technology industry been strongly focused on cost and efficiency. It faces fierce competition
not only from within but also from the computer industry, and this makes innovation a necessity. This
competition is combined with a market characterized by many and small-sized customers that demand
high performance and low prices, and this require increasingly shorter life cycles and a highly flexible
development process. New work practices are thus required for companies in both industries, and these
provide an opportunity for competitiveness.
Regarding their innovation strategies, both companies make use of a similar approach when aiming to
enhance and build new capabilities to innovate, and they both strive to involve a broad base of their
employees in the innovation effort. The companies’ organizations are described in detail below.
The TeleCom company
The company has a long history (100+ years) and is a world leader in the telecommunications industry. It
develops and provides equipment, software, and services to mobile and fixed network operators. Its
customers as well as its more than 100,000 employees are found in 180 countries. The company’s
headquarters are located in Stockholm, Sweden, as are its R&D head offices. The company is divided into
three main Business Units, ten Regions, and a number of Group Functions. Each Business Unit has its
own marketing, support, and development organization, and these are further divided into a large number
of units or sites that are distributed worldwide. The company is characterized by highly structured and
28
rather open processes, including strategy development and human resource management. The annual
strategy cycle includes situation analysis, defining strategic choices and focus, and identifying strategic
and capability issues and key priorities, including their targets and KPIs (Key Performance Indexes), down
to unit levels. Individuals are responsible for defining part of their own goals in communication with their
managers, and these are documented and regularly followed up on.
Product innovation organization
The organizational design of most high-technology firms is that of a functional design. In practice, this
means a specialization within the company between, for instance, technology specialists and people with
business-oriented competences, and this company is no exception to this. The development organization is
divided into three different product system areas that all have software development as their core
business, although hardware development is included as well. The majority of people in each unit work in
a development group, and each development group is specialized around the responsibility to realize new
features and products. Many of these groups are organized into teams of about 20 persons. The majority of
these teams are organized according to agile principles, i.e. the team works in well-defined blocks of time,
it has the competencies to develop a new feature from start to end, and it follows principles promoting
autonomy, flexibility, and learning.
Another important organizational function is the advanced technology groups that consist of senior
engineers and experts with the aim of exploring and developing new technologies, preferably into
prototypes. People in these groups have a deep knowledge of the product systems. Together with their
separate budgets dedicated to the development of new technologies, they have, in contrast to the majority
of developers in the company, the opportunity to explore rather radical and complex ideas. Furthermore,
people in these groups manage many different interfaces (research, product management, customers, and
development) making them important in translating different needs and requirements in the product
innovation process.
Two other functions, the research and the product-management organizations, are closely connected to
the development units and thus deserve some short descriptions. The research organization serves the
development organization with new knowledge, ideas, and concepts in diverse technology areas. The
product-management organization is responsible for developing strategic plans, and it defines and
prioritizes specific product-development initiatives. This requires people working in this organization to
be skilled both in technology and business. The latter is especially critical because this organization is
responsible for bringing the business aspect to the selection and evaluation of new technologies and of new
product and service ideas and concepts. Their external focus makes them valuable knowledge sources for
the development organization when it comes to interpreting customer and market needs.
Organizing to create conditions that are conducive to innovation
The company started a work plan to accelerate its innovation capability in 2009/2010. Innovation in the
overall strategy is broadly defined as realizing and creating value for different kinds of ideas such as new
technologies, products, services, business models, internal processes, and ways of working. The major
driver is the exponentially increasing number of smart phones and connected devices in the market that
has pushed the limits on existing communication solutions and network capabilities. End customers are
demanding increased speed and connectivity coverage, however, they are not willing to pay more than
before. Thus, the company must pay attention to both developing advanced technical solutions and to
controlling costs. Communication services and machine-to-machine solutions are gaining momentum,
and the company is continuously seeking new partnerships with, for instance, automobile manufacturers,
health care providers, and financial service companies to create new opportunities with the aim of forming
service and business model innovations. The key challenge is to find a balance between the company’s
29
well-established culture of technology focus, engineering practices, and operational efficiency and a
culture that empowers everyone in the company to innovate. The purpose of this is to become more
market and insight driven, more collaborative, and more engaging with employees, customers, and
partners.
Internally, the strategic emphasis on innovation involves all employees who are expected to contribute to
the innovation efforts. Measures taken to create conditions to support innovation include actions
dedicated to broadly sourcing ideas both internally and externally, the implementation of new IT
technologies to support the sharing of information and ideas, the set-up of a group-level incubator for
potentially valuable opportunities that have a hard time finding a “home” in the organization, and the
establishing of a network of innovation coaches. Tools and information to support the fostering of
innovation are gathered on the company’s intranet. In addition, information on initiatives taken in
different parts of the company is regularly shared. The strategic emphasis on creating an innovative spirit
is supported by the overall mission statement and values where innovating to empower people, business,
and society is emphasized, including an urging to innovate on a daily basis.
The MedTech company
The medical technology industry is characterized by a wide range of products varying in technological
complexity, from plasters and catheters to advanced neuro-stimulators and robotic surgery systems. The
company studied in this thesis is a manufacturer of products in the more technically complex end of the
spectrum with a focus on active and implantable products 1 that seek to manage a range of diseases and
medical conditions. The company has a history of 50+ years of bringing a number of pioneering
technologies and products to the market, and it is a market leader in several of its product areas. The
company has its headquarters in the US and consists of five divisions with approximately 15,000
employees worldwide. In the same manner as for the telecommunications company, these divisions are
further divided into sites or units that are distributed globally, and the company is represented in 100+
countries. The R&D units are located only in the US and Sweden. In contrast to the telecommunications
company, this company is characterized by rather top-down and closed strategy development processes
that are performed every other year rather than annually, and this is reflective of a less rapid product cycle.
The KPIs are, in a similar manner, broken down to reflect goals on an individual level that are documented
and regularly followed up on in an annual or biannual cycle.
The site that is the subject of the research studies in this thesis is located in Sweden and is part of the
largest division of the company. It has about 600 employees, of which about 200 work in the R&D
department. In contrast to the headquarters, the site management encourages a bottom-up approach and
strives to involve a broad base of its employees in the strategy development and innovation processes.
Product innovation organization
Like in the TeleCom company, the organization is functionally designed around specific competences. The
R&D organization is divided into four different technological platforms targeting different diseases or
medical conditions. The majority of people work in a development group. Because the product systems
1
An active implantable medical device is any device that relies on a source of electrical energy or source of power other than that
which is directly generated by the human body or gravity. In addition, it is intended to be totally or partially introduced into the
human body and is intended to remain after the initial medical procedure. (This is an abbreviation of the definition in Medical Device
Directive 93/42/EEC.)1
30
that are developed have a larger tangible output component compared to the output in the TeleCom
company, the hardware part of the development department is not insignificant. The R&D organization is
divided according to technical competences serving the different platforms, including hardware,
mechanics, electronics, software, etc., rather than according to product features or functions. Many of the
technology projects and most product development projects make use of cross-functional teams. The
projects make use of well-defined stages and gates to a small extent in the advanced technology phases and
to a large extent in the new product development phases. A less formal process characterizes the earlier
“front-end” phase. The software development is similar to that in the TeleCom company and is organized
and works according to agile principles where smaller teams are responsible for delivering specific
features.
The different roles of advanced technology, research, and product management are the same as described
for the TeleCom company. Because the products are defined as safety critical, the involvement of
specialists in design assurance and clinical and system engineering is crucial. These specialists are
involved in technology and product development projects from identifying and translating customer
requirements to testing and verifying product systems.
Organizing to create conditions that are conducive to innovation
As for the TeleCom company, the focus on innovation has always been a critical factor for success. In
addition, minimizing patient risks and improving patient outcomes while reducing costs is emphasized.
Today, innovation requires not only the development of new technologies but also an understanding of
how complex relations between different medical conditions, technologies, and actors in the health care
supply chain need to be managed in order to develop new products and product service systems. This has
had an impact on the organization and management of innovation, and, as a consequence, the company
has an explicit strategic objective to develop its innovation capabilities to meet these demands.
A more dedicated effort to support innovation in the Swedish unit was initiated in 2006. This effort
focused on improving the early phases of product development along with an encouragement of new ideas
from all employees. Specific innovation areas to direct idea generation were identified together with the
development of processes and tools to support unsolicited ideas. New work practices were experimented
with, including temporary cross-functional innovation teams, collaborative environmental scouting, hiring
clinicians on a part-time basis, and organized brainstorming using systematic creative problem solving
techniques (TRIZ). The introduction of “Innovation Fridays” and “Innovation Days” were other types of
activities that had the aim of allocating time to generating and exploring more innovative ideas within the
whole organization. The innovation work was coordinated by an “innovation board” composed of the
heads of different departments within R&D and appointed individuals with the responsibility of managing
innovation-related work within each department. The communication from the head office related to
innovation and its importance was considered rather weak in comparison to that in the
telecommunications TeleCom company. Nevertheless, innovation was considered a core value, and an
idea-management tool and process was implemented in 2007 to enable the gathering of ideas from all
employees. The system was closed, meaning that only dedicated individuals were allowed to take part in
the ideas gathered by the system. As a result of a corporate decision to consolidate all R&D in the US and
all manufacturing in Malaysia, the Swedish site of the company that was the subject of the studies in this
thesis was closed down in 2012.
31
Research approach, design, and methods
Research approach
Investigating what people in companies do to involve a broad base of their employees in innovation is a
complex area that is insufficiently investigated, and this is why an exploratory approach was chosen for
this thesis. To some extent, the research is also explanatory in that it aims to provide possible explanations
for why certain ways of organizing for innovation seem more feasible for its intended purpose than others.
The selection of an exploratory research approach means that the research strives foremost to
systematically describe the situation or phenomenon being studied as well as the attitudes towards what is
considered prevalent with respect to the target of the study (Kumar, 2011). Descriptive or exploratory
studies tend to be inductive and to ask “what” questions with the purpose of exploring people’s
experiences and their views or perspectives of these experiences. Explanatory studies make use of “why”
and “how” questions and aim to explain a phenomenon or situation. The studies performed in this thesis
have thus dealt with and made use of all three types of questions.
This thesis took a constructivist view. This means that the world is interpreted as socially constructed and
that the way the world is perceived depends, in part, on our beliefs and expectations, and this is why
complete truth is inevitably difficult to ascertain (Bunge, 1993). This also implies that context needs to be
taken into consideration. However, it is important to be aware that social phenomena do not exist only in
our minds and reasonably stable relationships exist between social phenomena and the objective world
(Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Because human activity is under investigation in this thesis, the interpretation of information will play a
key role in drawing conclusions (Corley and Gioia, 2011). Knowledge about the issues in focus for this
thesis is considered to best be generated through a qualitative approach to the examination and
interpretation of the data. Humans construct their own meaning in different ways, and thus multiple
contradictory, but equally valid, accounts of the same phenomenon can exist. Thus, both managers and
non-managerial employees were approached, and employees representing different roles and functions
were sought when this has been possible. To actively search for different views and perspectives in the
collection and analysis of the empirical material has been an important guiding principle. Even though
interviews were used as the main source and individuals’ experiences were in focus, the ‘site’ or context
was considered important as well. Thus, it was valuable to have had the opportunity to have longer visits at
the companies than only during the interviews. In addition, having access to the companies’ intranets
enabled a better understanding of the virtual environment within the companies. This has been considered
valuable because it has not only provided additional contextual knowledge (considering how much of
people’s daily working hours are spent in the virtual environment), but it also provided access to internal
documents describing the processes and work practices brought up by the respondents during the
interviews.
Collaboration between researchers and practitioners
This thesis aims to generate knowledge that can serve both research and practice. This thesis is the result
of an industrial PhD project between the Swedish subsidiary of a medical device company (hereafter
referred to as the MedTech company) and the Integrated Product Development (IPU) group at the
Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. An industrial PhD project aims to advance knowledge that is
beneficial to both the company and academia, and the student in such a project conducts part-time or fulltime studies at the request of the employing company and is affiliated with and supported by academic
supervisors in a department in a university (Kihlander et al., 2011). The first two studies (Studies 1 and 2,
32
see Table 1) were performed in the MedTech company where the researcher was an industrial PhD student
and was familiar with the organization. This is in contrast to Studies 3 and 4 (see Table 1) that were
performed in the TeleCom company where the researcher did not have any pre-understanding or
affiliation.
In the MedTech company, the researcher was actively involved in the innovation-related activities as a
coordinator in the implementation of the work practices being studied. As a coordinator, the researcher
scheduled and facilitated formal meetings, suggested improvements, collected and shared data, and wrote
protocols. This allowed for an exploration of how new work practices evolved over time, while in the
TeleCom company the researcher had no active role.
In Studies 1 and 2, the implementation of new work practices was made in close collaboration with the
practitioners, and the effects on outcomes and learning were followed up and analyzed through interviews
and document analysis. Interactions with practitioners were an essential part in these studies.
Practitioners have been involved in different roles, e.g. as discussion partners in prioritizing the design,
implementation, and use of new work practices, as testers and evaluators of new work practices, as
subjects of observations, and as respondents in interviews. In both studies, both R&D managers and
engineers in the organization participated. This practice-oriented approach was inspired by action
research (Coghlan, 2003) and collaborative research (Shani and Coghlan, 2014). These research streams
aim to contribute to both research and practice by systematically initiating, supporting, and studying
changes in the researched organization (Gummesson, 2000).
Principles for serving both research and practice
The debate concerning rigor and relevance in management research has been on-going for some time. Two
main camps have developed, one that claims that existing management research need to become more
relevant for practice and the other that claims that rigorous research cannot also be relevant (Gulati,
2007). Several scholars have attempted to develop approaches and to define principles for research studies
where rigor and relevance are not considered being polarities (e.g. Van de Ven and Johnsson, 2006;
Tushman et al., 2007; Gualti, 2007). These principles are also considered as being in alignment to
suggestions made in design research (e.g. Blessing and Chakrabarti, 2009), which is a research field
stemming from the engineering schools that also aim to target the practices of managers and engineers.
This thesis accepts the view that it is possible to perform research that is both relevant and rigorous. The
following four principles have been important for how the research was performed in this thesis.
– Researchers should interact closely with practitioners in order to reveal problems that motivate
research studies
This is not the same as simply asking practitioners what their problems are. Managers and engineers are
not always fully aware of or are not able to explicitly articulate critical issues (similar to customers or
consumers in the product-development process). Identifying what problem to focus on is rather an
interactive process that can be facilitated through different means but which ultimately is about having
productive dialogues (Silverman, 2011). As a response to this principle, several dialogues with
practitioners who are responsible for organizing for innovation in organizations outside the companies
studied have been held. In addition, the dialogues with senior researchers in academia have been crucial in
the development of fruitful research questions.
– Researchers should strive to ground their ideas in existing theories and should be distinct and
transparent when articulating new theories
33
This will make the contributions to the body of management or design knowledge clearer. In this thesis,
the Theoretical Frame of Reference section aims to explain what streams of literature have been used and
the underlying assumptions made in their selection. In addition, Table 1 illustrates how the literature was
used in the different studies.
– Researchers should appreciate the existing dialectic between theory and the phenomenon or practice
to which it relates
“Theory forces one to examine phenomena from a novel or more integrated standpoint, whereas
observable behavior or outcomes allow one to define, refine, or discard theory” (Gulati, 2007, pp.). The
different studies in this thesis have made use of different theoretical lenses when interpreting the
empirical material at hand. The access to empirical data in two different settings has provided the ability
to challenge some of the existing theories or assumptions. Table 1 aims to make the research process
clearer to the reader when it comes to the dialectic between theory and practice.
– The role of the researcher as a translator needs to be embraced
The researcher’s role resembles that of a translator who must interpret the world of practitioners and be
able to share research findings with them in an intelligible manner (Mohrman et al., 2001). Such
translation does not necessarily need to result in a new method or process, but as Silverman (2011) put it,
it can, for example, mean participating in debates about how organizations function, providing different
options for people to make their own choices, or simply offering a new perspective. This thesis embraces
the wide range of available options on how to translate academic research. In agreement with Weick
(2001), this thesis also embraced the idea that the present gap between what is produced in academic
research and what is applied and used in practice does not lie only in the ways that researchers work. It is
“as much a product of practitioners wedded to gurus and fads as it is of academics wedded to abstractions
and fundamentals” Weick (2001). It takes two to tango. Or rather three if the numerous consultants in the
field of innovation management are included.
Research design
This thesis builds on four empirical studies. The first two studies were performed in the MedTech
company between 2009 and 2011. The investigations were performed by zooming in on two particular
routines that the company had implemented as a result of its ambition to become more innovative. By
following the implementation of these new ways of working, the studies generated insights into what it
means to design and implement new routines and guided the search for relevant theory. These studies
served as the basis for the design of the studies performed in the TeleCom company.
The third study was performed in the TeleCom company in the spring of 2013 and in the spring of 2014. It
investigated what leaders scoring the highest in terms of an innovative environment in an internal
employee survey do to involve a broad base of their employees in driving both radical and incremental
innovation. Finally, the fourth study was initiated in the TeleCom company in September 2013 and ended
in February 2014. This study identified and compared new ways of working in four different globally
distributed R&D units within the company.
The research process has included several iterations between the collection and analysis of empirical
material and consulting the literature. In Table 1, the research design is summarized and the different
steps in the research process are illustrated.
34
Table 1 Summary of research design
Time
period
for data
collectio
n&
compan
y
Aug 2010Oct 2010
MedTech
Rationale for the
study
Method
used to
collect
empirical
material
Method and literature
used to analyze the
empirical material
Paper
included
in this
thesis
Main findings &
contributions to
research
STUDY 1
Performed to
investigate the use of
innovation
measurement on a
continuous basis.
19 interviews
with 10
managers
and 9
engineers
The researcher facilitated the
implementation of the
innovation measurement
using a research-based
framework.
Paper II
Participant
observations
The researcher actively
participated in innovation
steering-board meetings.
Addressed a research gap
in studies on the use of
innovation measurement
on a continuous basis in
contrast to an existing
focus on conceptually
advanced diagnostic audit
tools. Also, contributing
by investigating the role
of performance
measurement in relation
to innovation
organizational routines.
Questions were related
to people’s definition
of innovation and their
experience from the
ongoing innovation
work, and particularly
the consequences from
using innovation
measurement.
Document
analysis
Collection and analysis of
innovation measurement.
Notes were taken and
meeting protocols were used
to describe how the
implementation was
performed, and these were
compared with the
experiences from
respondents in the
interviews.
Increased understanding
of the roles of
performance
measurement in relation
to innovation and the
identification of
consequences from using
innovation measurement
over time.
Categorization, clustering,
and comparison between
different respondents
representing two levels
(engineers and managers)
and different departments.
Clustering and comparison of
the field material using
Pavlov and Bourne’s (2011)
conceptual model and the
general performance and
innovation management
literature.
Analysis made use of the data
from the interviews related to
attitudes and experiences
from using innovation
35
Paper III
Addressed a research gap
on studies that can shed
light on the
implementation of a
measurement in the
MedTech company, and
these were compared with
the experiences from the
development and use of the
research-based framework in
the TeleCom company.
research-based support
tool and not just its
design.
Identified design criteria
for a tool based on the
use of measurement to
support groups/teams to
initiate their own change
work to become
innovative and to sustain
innovation.
Analysis made use of general
organizational learning
literature.
Aug 2009
- June
2011
MedTech
STUDY 2
Performed to
investigate how a new
work practice over
time (collaborative
environmental
scanning).
Questions were related
to how people use and
perceive the work
practice that was
implemented, what
elements are
considered most and
least useful, and the
learning and
innovation outcomes
generated.
March
2013–
June 2013
+
March
2014–
May 2014
TeleCom
STUDY 3
Performed to
investigate what
formal leaders scoring
the highest in terms of
an innovative
environment in an
internal employee
survey do to involve a
broad base of their
employees in driving
both incremental and
radical innovation.
Questions related to
contextual factors,
innovation definition
and outputs, reason
for scoring high,
deliberate actions
11 interviews
with 3
managers
and 8
engineers
Participant
observation
Document
analysis
The researcher coordinated
the implementation of the
new work practice.
Paper I
Notes were taken and
meeting protocols were used
to describe how the
implementation was
performed, and these were
compared with the
experiences from
respondents in the
interviews.
Increased understanding
on issues related to
implementing innovation
work practices that aim to
stimulate knowledge
creation and innovation.
Categorization, clustering,
and comparison between
different respondents
representing two levels
(engineers and managers).
31 interviews
with
managers
Clustering and comparison of
the field material using the
knowledge and innovation
management literature.
The sampling was based on
scores on an internal survey
that assessed to what extent
employees considered their
own organization to be open
to new ways of thinking and
to be good at transforming
market insights into new
products and offerings and if
the person answering the
survey felt encouraged to
come up with new and better
ways of doing things.
Categorization, clustering,
and comparison of
experiences and attitudes
between managers and in
relation to the different
functions they represent.
36
Addressed a research gap
in studies that focus on
how companies go about
changing their work
practices to enable both
incremental and radical
innovation over time.
Paper IV
Addressed a research gap
on what actions people in
an organization take to
broaden the involvement
of employees in
innovation, and
particularly to what
extent they take into
consideration the needs
for both incremental and
more radical innovation.
Identified types of
deliberate actions that are
considered to be
important to enable an
innovative environment
and identified and
highlighted issues when
involving a broad base of
taken with the purpose
of support innovation,
and leadership
principles.
Sept 2013
–Feb
2014
TeleCom
STUDY 4
Performed to
investigate the
approaches and
organizational routines
to support innovation
that were used in four
different units in the
R&D organization.
24 interviews
w. managers
(8),
innovation
managers/
coaches (10)
and
developers
(6)
Questions related to
the definition of
innovation; how
innovation-work is
planned, coordinated,
and evaluated; what
formal work practices
they have
implemented; and the
experiences, learning,
and outputs of these
and the on-going
innovation work.
Nonparticipant
observations
(in total
about 80
hours)
Document
analysis
Clustering and comparison of
the field material using the
innovation management
literature and the literature
that distinguishes between
radical and incremental
innovation management.
Categorization, clustering,
and comparison of
experiences and attitudes
between people in different
roles involved in the
development of
organizational support for
innovation and between
different units in the
company.
Documents describing the
work and the organizational
support that was
implemented were
compared with the
experiences from the
respondents in the
interviews.
Clustering of the material
using a framework for
categorizing organizational
support for innovation based
on the following three
theoretical concepts:
autonomous and induced
initiatives (Burgelman, 1991);
the social constraint-action
concept for product
innovation (Dougherty,
2008), and the
organizational routine
literature (e.g. Feldman,
2000; Feldman and
Pentland, 2003)
37
employees in innovation.
Paper V
Addressed a research gap
on what actions people in
an organization take to
involve a broad base of
employees in both
induced and autonomous
initiatives.
Made a link between
organizational routines
and Burgelman´s intraorganizational innovation
model as a way to analyze
different approaches to
support innovation.
Identified similarities
between approaches that
create a higher level of
engagement and those
that create a lower level
of engagement.
Identified the need to
manage specific types of
conflicts that arise in a
planned effort to support
innovation.
Research methods
Interviews, participant and non-participant observations, and document analysis were used in the studies
of this thesis (see Table 1). These research methods were selected based on the research approach and
were used to build knowledge as well as for methodological triangulation (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000).
Data collection was undertaken in partnership with a senior academic researcher in Study 1, and several
researchers were involved in Study 3. The analysis of the empirical material in all studies was undertaken
by the researcher and was complemented by additional and iterative analyses in collaboration with one or
more senior academic researchers. The detailed methods for data collection and the analyses of the
empirical material are found in the appended papers. It is important to note that in qualitative fieldwork
the analysis of the material is not a distinct stage of the research process. In many respects it begins when
the researcher contemplates potential research problems before they go into the field and it continues as
the researcher writes articles, books, and research reports after their return from the field (Silverman,
2011).
Interviews
A total of 80 interviews were conducted, and these lasted 45–90 minutes each. The number of interviews
performed in the different studies and the guiding questions are shown in Table 1. The interviews were
used to create knowledge on what actions are undertaken to stimulate innovation and to collect different
experiences and possible conflicting views on how efforts for innovation are organized in the company.
Thus the interviews allowed data to be collected from people in different positions with different functions
as well as in two different companies in order to include as many perspectives as possible and to provide a
more nuanced understanding of how innovation is approached (Beitin, 2012). The interviews also acted as
a way to identify important issues that require further investigation.
Interviews can best be characterized as open conversations (Kvale, 1996) and are a research method
suitable for exploratory and descriptive research studies because they can produce detailed, precise, valid,
and adequate responses (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). A competence that was crucial to develop in this
project was reflexivity. As Fog (1994) points out, the researcher needs to be aware of the hidden
manipulative and seductive aspects of an interviewing situation. An interview is not simply a conversation
between equals because the researcher is the one in power who can accept or condemn what the
interviewee is saying. Because interviews construct knowledge through the interaction between the
interviewer and the interviewee(s), attention needs to be paid both to what is happening during the actual
interview situation and in subsequent analysis (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000).
The interviews were recorded except when individuals preferred that they not be. In these cases, notes
were taken during the interviews and summarized after the interviews. The recorded interviews were
transcribed and re-read. Categorization of the transcribed material was made both in relation to what was
said and answered, and in a second step these categories were analyzed with respect to established
theories (see Table 1).
Observations
Direct observation can be divided into participant and non-participant observation. The main difference is
that participant observation describes the situation when the researcher is performing the same tasks as
the people whom she or he is observing (Czarniawska, 2014).
In the first two studies, participant observation was made possible because the researcher was involved as
a coordinator in the innovation work in the organization that was being studied. The observations were
systematically performed during formal meetings. In Study 1, notes were taken during regular meetings
with the innovation board of the company. In Study 2, notes were taken during the regular meetings
38
between the engineers in their roles as environmental scouts and during the regular meetings between the
engineers and the managers in the company. Specific attention was paid to issues raised by the attendees
in the meetings as being problematic or particularly valuable. Also, less systematic observations were
made during casual conversations in the researcher’s daily work within the company.
In the fourth study, non-participant observations were performed during formal innovation events that
were organized by people in different units in the TeleCom company. The researcher was invited to
participate in formal events in all four of the sites studied and participated in a total of five full-day events
at three of the sites. Also, less systematic observations were made possible during casual conversations
during regular company visits (in total 80 hours).
The notes taken acted as guidance in the development of interview questions, were used to compare the
respondents’ answers in the interviews and to identify what and how documents and other innovationrelated artifacts were used in the companies.
Document analysis
Documents related to the planned effort to stimulate innovation in both companies were gathered through
access to the companies’ business management systems. Table 2. lists type of document used in the
analysis. The analysis of the documents fulfilled an important role both as a way to triangulate methods
and to develop an understanding of how the work to stimulate innovation was performed over time. The
researcher was employed by the MedTech company and thus had unlimited access to information from the
company’s internal system. In the TeleCom company, temporary access during the study was generously
granted in order to facilitate the archival search for relevant material and to facilitate the scheduling of
interviews and other meetings.The documents were used to support an understanding of how the work
practices were implemented and communicated as well as an understanding of the outcomes from the
work practices.
Table 2. List of documents analyzed.
This table lists the type of documents that have been analyzed.
Document
Vision and value statements (company and unit level)
Balanced Score Cards (unit level)
Innovation vision and/or objectives (company and unit level)
Information on intranet innovation sites (company and unit level)
Announcements/newsletters related to innovation
Innovation power point presentations related to actions and outcomes (unit level)
Innovation posters
Innovation gadgets (used in conjunction to Innovation days and Idea contests in the Telecom
Company)
Innovation process and organization descriptions
Innovation planning and target documents
Innovation performance measurement data (MedTech Company)
Internal regular yearly innovation survey (Telecom Company)//single survey (MedTech
Company)
Innovation methods training material
Summary of innovation workshop/seminar outputs (MedTech Company)
Innovation idea management system
Idea evaluation excel sheets (unit level)
39
Innovation board meeting agendas and meeting notes (MedTech Company)
Environmental scanning reports (MedTech Company)
Environmental scanning meeting agendas and meeting notes (MedTech Company)
Reflection on validity, reliability, and generalizability
By selecting a real-life situation that possesses all the elements that the research questions seek to address,
the data can be considered highly relevant in relation to the research question. This is considered to be a
critical factor for data validity (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Furthermore, qualitative research has an
advantage in how it can address and match the reality it seeks to represent. This is especially the case if the
research involves prolonged participation over time as was the case in the Med tech company. Also, in an
interview situation there is the opportunity to follow-up and ask questions to clarify any ambiguities. In
the studies performed for this thesis, the researcher always asked for permission to come back to ask
additional questions and occasionally did so. The presentation of the findings from the different studies to
the practitioners in the respective companies has also been used to further strengthen the validity of the
studies.
The respondents were selected based on their levels of experience and their involvement in the issues at
hand, as recommended by Bryman and Bell (2007). Because this thesis sought to obtain a broad
perspective on the practices in question, the respondents represented different roles, functions, genders,
and geographical locations. This does not mean that all possible perspectives have been collected, but the
diversity of respondents can at least be considered to contribute to a more nuanced picture of the practices
in question. Also, the fact that the respondents were promised total anonymity is viewed to have
contributed to less biased or prettifying answers.
Studying your own business
The researcher was employed in, and thus familiar with, the Med Tech company in contrast to the
TeleCom company. A pre-understanding can be considered an advantage because it provides the
researcher with knowledge of many aspects of the everyday life of the organization being studied. This
means, for instance, that it enables an understanding of critical events and what they mean within the
organization (Coghlan, 2003). It also provides an understanding of legitimate and taboo phenomena in
the organization and what might be hidden beyond the “window-dressing” (Gummeson, 2001). However,
the disadvantage in being close to the data is the risk that the insider assumes too much, which can lead to
less deep probing than if he or she were an outsider or did not know so much about the situation within
the company. Furthermore, it might be hard for the researcher to stand back from the organization in
order to objectively assess and criticize it (Coghlan, 2003; Coghlan and Shani, 2008). This is where the
senior academic researchers, as well as the discussions and interviews with individuals from the
organization, have played a crucial role in the studies performed in the Medtech company. By asking
different questions and reflecting differently on the data, the “outsider” researchers and individuals
outside the research project provided a kind of alternative framing (Coghlan, 2003).
In the initial part of the research project in the Med Tech company, the data collection was performed
together with external researchers to reduce biases and conflicts. In addition, both purposive and chain-ofreferral samplings were used when selecting respondents to facilitate different perspectives on the same
phenomenon. These measures are argued to have contributed to the development of the reflexivity
competence as called for by Brannick and Coghlan (2007). They emphasize that it is important in insiderresearch projects for the researcher to engage in a process of reflexivity to make them aware of the
strengths and limits of their pre-understanding so that they can use their experience and knowledge to
40
reframe their understanding of situations to which they are close. By being open to conflicting views, the
research findings in this thesis have been challenged and this has led to additional rounds of analysis of
the field material. Another important measure in supporting the development of a more reflective capacity
was the researcher’s access to two offices during the studies. The office at the university was particularly
valuable when there was a need to take a step back and look at the field material that had been gathered
without the noise from the subject of analysis; the physical distance truly supported the mental distance
that was needed.
The use of an action research-inspired design in Studies 1 and 2 enabled an understanding of how changes
in work practices evolve over time and the possible outcomes of these changes. The researchers’
involvement in these changes can be argued to bias the analysis of the outcomes due to an unexpressed
desire for these changes to be “successful”. The use of several methods, and especially the study of
documented results in these studies, can be argued to have contributed to a less biased view. Furthermore,
the involvement of other researchers and individuals in the data collection and analysis has been crucial in
providing an outside perspective.
The risk for the respondents not daring to disapprove or to be critical of the changes that were
implemented in the companies also needs to be taken seriously. The researcher’s role in the organization
and the researcher’s frequent contacts with its management might have made respondents provide
answers that were more politically correct. However, considering how open and how mixed the attitudes
were towards the innovation-related changes, such bias is considered to have been less common than what
might have been expected. The same openness and mixed critical attitudes were also seen among the
respondents in the TeleCom company.
It would be naive to ignore potential conflicts of interests that can arise because companies, even if they
are genuinely interested in learning about their own organization, have an interest in being described in
positive terms in any kind of public documents. The companies studied have, however, shown respect for
academic quality and freedom and have not at any time rejected a publication even though the data could
at times be considered less than flattering. In the MedTech company, the understanding that a PhD
student’s role is to critically study their own organization in order to provide learning opportunities was
explicitly expressed by the innovation management board. This allowed the researcher to openly express
criticism towards the organization and towards its management when the results supported taking such a
stand.
Selection of respondents
The use of an internal survey in the selection of respondents for the studies performed in the TeleCom
company deserves some reflection. The survey, which is briefly described in Table 1 (under Study 3) was
designed and conducted internally within the company. In general, the use of a research-based survey
would have been preferable as a tool to select the different units. For instance, in Study 3 a survey design
that would have made it possible to more clearly separate between units producing more or less radical
innovations would have been preferable. This would have made it possible to analyze specific features of
these units and would have enabled a comparison between these and the top-scoring units. Another
possible improvement would have been if the managers who were interviewed would have been unaware
of having been selected as top performers because such knowledge might have led to bias in their answers.
However, because the majority of managers were very humble in relation to their results and because they
highlighted actions that they were not involved with, it appears that such bias was not prevalent in their
answers.
In Study 4, it would also have been preferred if managers representing the least well-performing units had
also been systematically selected from the survey. This was, however, not possible due to ethical reasons.
41
The selection of the R&D units in Study 4 that were not represented in the top-performing list was done in
dialogue with an innovation manager in the company. During the interviews at the different sites, the
differences in the level of engagement and output as depicted by the innovation manager were confirmed.
From the specific to the general
The studies were performed in two companies during a limited time period, and the possibility to draw
general conclusions from the research is limited (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The contexts that were studied
and the issues that were identified can, however, be considered to be rather common in many large
technology-based companies. When results and issues from these studies have been presented to
practitioners working in similar settings, the recognition factor has been high. This indicates that even
though it is not possible to make any claims about generalizability, the findings might prove valuable in
other settings. It is impossible to fully replicate the studies because they were performed in a dynamic
social setting, but by providing detailed information about the empirical settings and by being transparent
with how the studies were performed – in addition to keeping the raw data that were collected – the
studies provide as much guidance as possible for how similar studies could be performed. Although the
issues were not investigated in a way that ensures high generalizability, the systematic approach in the
study design and data analysis was intended to increase the validity and the relevance for both researchers
and practitioners.
42
Summary of appended papers
This section summarizes the five appended papers and their contributions to the thesis.
Papers I and II are based on studies performed in the MedTech company. Paper I describes the
development of an organizational routine to support a collaborative environmental scanning and the
challenges associated with this development over time. Paper II presents how innovation performance
measurement is designed and used to support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous
initiatives and the consequences from using it in the company. The results from these two papers
generated insights on the overall design of and the challenges associated to a planned effort to support
employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives. These papers formed the basis for the
studies performed in the TeleCom company that are presented in paper IV and V.
Paper III describes and compares the design and use of innovation measurement as a way to support the
building of innovation capabilities in the MedTech and TeleCom companies. This paper deepens the
understanding of what needs to be considered when designing and using innovation measurement to
support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives presented in Paper II.
Papers IV and V are based on studies performed in the TeleCom company. Paper IV search for similar and
different patterns in the deliberate actions taken to support employees in pursuing both induced and
autonomous initiatives across many different units in the company. Paper V presents a fine-grained
analysis of what characterizes the routines used in units that are more successful in involving a broad base
of their employees in innovation compared to what characterizes those units that are less successful. An
overview of the papers and the distribution of work between the authors can be found in Table 3.
Table 3. Distribution of work among the authors of the appended papers
Paper
I
First author
Susanne Nilsson
Co-author(s)
II
Susanne Nilsson
Sofia Ritzén
III
Sofia Ritzén
Susanne Nilsson, Magnus
P. Karlsson
IV
Susanne Nilsson
Gunilla ÖlundhSandström, Magnus P.
Karlsson, Sofia Ritzén
V
Susanne Nilsson
Sofia Ritzén
43
Distribution of work between authors
Planning of the study was carried out by Nilsson under
supervision of Ritzén. Interviews were conducted and
analyzed by Nilsson who wrote the paper.
Planning of the study was carried out by Nilsson under
supervision of Ritzén. The interviews were conducted
and analyzed and the article written by Nilsson and
Ritzén in collaboration.
Data were collected in two organizations by Ritzén,
Nilsson and Karlsson. The analysis was performed and
article was written in collaboration between Ritzén,
Nilsson and Karlsson.
Planning of the study was performed by Nilsson,
Karlsson and Ritzén in collaboration. Interviews were
conducted by Nilsson (16), students (15) under close
supervision by Ritzén and Nilsson. Analysis was
performed in collaboration between Nilsson, ÖlundhSandström and Ritzén. The article was co-authored with
Nilsson as the main contributor.
Planning of the study and the data were collected and
analyzed by Nilsson. The article was co-authored with
Nilsson as the main contributor.
Paper I: Nilsson, S. (2012) Exploring problem finding in a medical device company, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 16. No. 4, pp. 66-78.
Paper I explores the design, implementation, and use of a systematic and collaborative way of working for
environmental scanning in the Med Tech company to improve the company’s ability to identify both
incremental and radical innovation opportunities. The paper presents how the new way of working
evolved over a period of three years and what types of management controls were used. In addition,
challenges that were raised and the resulting innovation and learning outcomes are also described and
analyzed. This paper contributes to the thesis by highlighting what needs to be taken into consideration if
an organizational routines (in the paper a collaborative and systematic innovation routine) is to be
implemented as a means to encourage both induced and autonomous initiatives and by showing which
control mechanisms are combined and are considered more useful or less useful.
The paper reveals that the workshops where the result from the environmental scanning were shared and
discussed between engineers and managers were considered the most stimulating part for both parties.
The workshops were found to create a forum that was largely missing in the organization and provided an
occasion where experts and managers had the opportunity to discuss company strategies and to share
their thoughts about the present and future state within a broad field of areas. The workshops also caused
frustration among the experts when it came to resistance from management to the more radical
opportunities that were not seen as being in alignment with existing strategies.
The paper also highlights challenging areas that are considered critical to pay attention to when aiming to
develop new routines to support innovation. The issues identified in the study differed between the
engineers and the managers. It was found to be difficult for the engineers to select relevant information or
to screen out information, not the least when it came to more immature areas such as novel technologies
or disease management areas. The study showed that training in formulating a search question was a key
managerial approach. Furthermore, it took time and effort to achieve the right amount and quality of
information that was automatically retrieved using the IT-based tool, and for many of the areas the tool
was never able to unburden the expert to the extent that it was meant to. Issues were also related to
interpersonal matters such as the scouts feeling insecure in their selection of relevant material to publish,
especially when searching in novel areas. One of the key issues highlighted by the managers was to
understand how to break down the high-level strategies communicated within the company for identifying
more specific problems or areas that could support the search for information and spur creative ideas
among the scouts.
The level of specificity of the managerial controls that were used is addressed in the paper as a key issue
when developing routines for both induced and autonomous initiatives. The paper shows that the use of
simple templates and guidelines and the follow-up on time spent on scanning were perceived as
supportive measures for introducing deadlines for deliverables. The direction of search areas and the
report format that was used showed mixed results, and the implementation and use of the IT tool was the
least appreciated support that was implemented. Despite the abundance of conflicting views and strong
emotions present in the analysis workshops, the face to face meetings were considered far more productive
than sharing information using the IT tool due to the tool’s inability to provide quick feedback.
Paper II: Nilsson, S. and Ritzén, S. (2014) Exploring the use of innovation performance measurement to
build innovation capability in a medical device company, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 23,
No.2, pp. 183-198.
44
In this paper, the implementation and use of performance measurement to support the ongoing effort to
create conditions that are conducive to innovation are described and analyzed in detail. The paper
illustrates the diverse views on innovation that exist within an organization and the issues related to this.
Innovation management and measurement theory are combined with empirical investigations of
experiences of using measurement as a support for the development of innovation capability in practice.
This paper contributes to the thesis by providing increased knowledge on the role of measurement in
developing organizational routines to support employees pursuing both induced and autonomous
initiatives.
The paper shows that the level of involvement by different departments in the company’s R&D
organization differed markedly in the company’s ongoing effort to build innovation capability – from
being heavily involved (referred to as innovation leaders) to attentiveness from a distance (referred to as
innovation laggards and progress evaluators). This is argued to reflect the diverse views of what
constitutes innovation and what role the department’s members consider it to play in innovation. The
diverse views on innovation are also reflected in what types of measures are in use. For example, the
research department measures the number of patentable ideas and research projects while the project
office makes use of project-process efficiency metrics. The innovation leaders are seen to experiment with
the implementation of new measures with the aim of triggering new routines, which is in contrast to the
laggards who only make use of traditional metrics.
The result from the use of measurement in the company showed that new ideas were not something that
would naturally occur within the organization despite dedicating time and resources to it and that triggers
and guided actions were required. The visualization of the innovation measurement pattern gave rise to an
increased understanding among the managers of how important it was to continuously manage innovation
and to act accordingly.
Measuring time spent on innovation-related work was found to play an important role in spurring
discussions on priorities, and measuring the number of ideas that were generated gave rise to extensive
debates that revealed the different views on innovation that dominated in different parts of the
organization. The paper suggests that if a measurement is to support different type of ideas, it needs to
take into consideration that patentable ideas have the strongest status in an R&D organization and that
organizational process-related ideas are easier to track, communicate, and implement than measures for
ideas that do not fit within these categories such as new services, business models, etc. While using
measurement acted as a trigger for management, the same response was not seen among the developers.
The paper reveals the potential roles for measurement in supporting the development of organizational
routines to support innovation. However, the paper shows that the role of measurement as a trigger or
guide for the development of new routines is far from straightforward.
Paper III: Ritzén, S., Nilsson, S. and Karlsson, M. P. (2012) Innovation in teams – inducing action by
defining challenges and indicators, Proceedings of the 19th International Product Development,
Management Conference, 17-19 June, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Paper III continues to explore the design and implementation of support based on performance
measurement that enables the creation of conditions that are conducive to innovation. In the paper, the
development of an innovation measurement framework with the aim of supporting teams in becoming
more innovative in the two companies are described and analyzed. The designs and re-designs that were
made, why they were made, and the learning outcomes that resulted from these designs are presented. The
45
paper also describes the overall planned effort in each company when it comes to how to enable the
building of innovation capabilities and how the measurement framework was used in these different
contexts. Both the similarities and differences between the companies give rise to a number of important
observations during the deployment of the innovation measurement framework. The paper is based on a
collaborative research setting between academia and industry, and in this paper the three authors reflect
upon the observations they have made over the years when designing and implementing the framework in
the companies. This paper contributes to the thesis by shedding light on what needs to be taken into
consideration when designing and implementing performance measurements to support innovation.
Team members in both case study companies found measuring innovation easy to relate to and easy to
anchor in their organizations because using indicators is a familiar approach in many processes and
systems in their companies. Participants from the teams in both companies expressed their enthusiasm
that the workshop and the inspiration from the lists of indicators had broadened their view on innovation.
The contribution of innovation measurement framework to a measurement system in the MedTech
company was considered to signal to employees that the focus on innovation is an equally important focus
for the organization as other priorities. In the TeleCom company, the ambition to spread the concept on a
global level, to all teams, provided a clear signal of the urgency to work with innovation in the company.
Regarding the differences between the companies in deploying the framework, the paper concludes that
the framework in the TeleCom company enables clearer support for the teams in their change work.
Furthermore, the indicators in the TeleCom company were used for team learning and were not used by
management as a control or evaluation tool. This was in contrast to the Med Tech company where the
deployment of the framework contributed to an existing measurement system, which entailed the risk of
the framework becoming less motivational because measurement is associated with the traditional use of
measurement as a control rather than a learning device. In addition, the support in developing concrete
action plans and the adaption of the framework to the language of the Telecom company was considered a
beneficial improvement because it provided firmer guidance and anchored the support within the
company context.
Paper IV: Nilsson, S., Öhlund-Sandström, G., Karlsson, M.P. and Ritzén, S. (2014) Innovating everyday
– making innovation everyone’s business, in review for Technovation. A previous version was published in
the proceedings of the 15th International CINet Conference, 7-9 September, 2014, Budapest, Hungary.
The study presented in paper IV was based on interviews with thirty-one managers working in different
globally distributed units in the TeleCom company. The managers were identified as top performers on
innovation in a yearly employee survey conducted within the organization. The paper outlined and
analyzed the actions taken by the managers to involve a broad base of their employees in innovation in
their respective units. In addition, the paper investigated how, and to what extent, managers organized for
and initiated work practices that support both radical and incremental innovation. The paper contributes
to the thesis with knowledge on what actions people in organizations with the ambition to support
employees pursuing both induced and autonomous take. The paper also provides insights on the
implications from the effort to increase the level of participation in innovation in parts of a company
beyond the R&D organization, which is the traditional “owner” of innovation in industrial firms.
The paper showed that several units scoring high in the internal survey in the company were non-R&D
units and were primarily internal process and customer-related support units. The paper identified the use
of four categories of actions: actions to stimulate and motivate people to innovate; actions aiming to
induce knowledge sharing and creation; actions to provide time, money, and other resources; and actions
46
to create structures and processes. In the analysis of the empirical data, some common patterns among the
top innovation managers emerged. The dominating approaches in use focused on creating an innovative
environment rather than managing innovation in the sense of controlling or steering it, which is
emphasized by how the managers define innovation. Culture and attitudes were seen as ongoing processes
rather than results, and managers did not separate their strategies, processes, or organizational structures
with regard to induced and autonomous initiatives. In addition, the majority of the ideas generated and
realized were rather incremental in their nature. Most of the managers perceived that the dominance of
incremental ideas is natural in a large organization where the end–product is a highly complex technology
product, although some of the managers admitted that they would like to see more ideas that identify
radical innovation opportunities. Few of the leaders brought up external collaborations as the key to why
they are top performers, but rather they referred to individual and team performance and motivation. The
results show that customer-related support units were naturally able to include customers in problem
solving, although when customers were included this tended to have a rather reactive nature such as
solving immediate customer problems or issues. In most units, the problem solving and idea management
activities were mainly performed by employees.
The freeing up of people’s time and the need to stimulate people’s mindsets were found to be a critical
leadership philosophy, and many of the managers, regardless of their level within the company, were
found to involve themselves personally with the exchange of market and business information and the
evaluation of ideas from their employees. The organizational structure and formalization level of the
innovation work differed markedly among the units. Adopting a high level of participation in innovation
does not require managers to step away from their guiding and steering roles, and the paper shows that
doing so might even be considered a threat to radical innovation. The study also provides examples of
units where mechanisms for proactively stimulating and guiding innovation are used, for example, when
implementing a systematic approach in goal setting or developing processes to evaluate and develop
innovative ideas.
Paper V: Nilsson, S. and Ritzén S. (2014) Selecting and developing organizational routines to support
innovation, in review for International Journal of Innovation Management. A previous version was
published in the proceedings of the 15th International CINet Conference, 7-9 September, 2014, Budapest,
Hungary.
Paper V addresses how organizational routines are deployed so as to involve a broad base of employees in
pursuing both autonomous and induced initiatives. The paper investigates the similarities and differences
of the organizational routines that were identified in the four different units in the R&D organization of
the TeleCom company, and it analyses the underlying reasoning and consequences of these differences.
The paper contributes to the thesis with an understanding of how approaches that might appear very
different on the surface can be equally successful in supporting innovation if some underlying principles
are shared between the approaches.
This study shows that the routines created to support employees in the pursuit of both induced and
autonomous initiatives in large, mature companies are manifold and diverse. Which routines are selected
is largely dependent on personal views on what an innovation process is in need of rather than on internal
or external environmental contingencies, and the lack of consensus on how to support innovation within
the innovation management community is found to be reflected in actions in practice. This study also
shows that accepting diverse opinions on what innovation is in need of can create a valuable source of
tension that can stimulate innovation in an organization.
47
Some combinations of organizational routines emerge as more effective and some as less effective in
supporting employees in pursuing both autonomous and induced initiatives. Based on the analysis in this
paper, it is concluded that the actors who are responsible for creating the conditions that are conducive to
innovation in an organization need to select routines to target the selection, development, and retention of
innovation initiatives. It is also important not to fall into the trap of associating innovation too closely with
creativity and idea generation, and thus it is important to consider routines that not only provide the
resources needed to generate new ideas, but also the routines that educate people and provide them with
the necessary skills to participate in an innovation process In addition, the innovation routines were
shown to need to be neither too strongly nor too weakly integrated into normal operations, and it is also
important to understand how to properly “dress” innovation routines, i.e. how to design the artifacts that
are in use. Both overdressing and underdressing are ineffective because innovation routines need to be
perceived as both familiar and deviant at the same time.
This paper emphasizes the importance of using structures or social constraints i.e. not only make use of
social actions by providing resources and stimuli and the “hope for innovation to happen”. However, too
strong of a focus on structures and procedures is also shown to be problematic, and in line with
Dougherty’s (2008) conceptual model this study illustrates the importance on considering both social
actions and social constraints when deliberately building innovation capabilities in practice. By embracing
the idea that innovation is a process with different phases with different needs depending on whether it
concerns induced and autonomous initiatives, the study create an understanding of when and how to
effectively combine social constraints and social actions in practice. Finally, and in line with much of the
existing literature, the study shows the importance of engaged leaders when an organization seeks to
involve a broad base of employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives.
Analysis and discussion of key contributions from the appended
papers
In this section, key contributions from the five appended papers are analyzed and discussed to answer the
three research questions and to highlight the central findings of this thesis.
This section starts by discussing the observation that the majority of actions taken in both companies
studied target the initiation of innovation with the purpose to stimulate the generation of new ideas. The
reasons for and the consequences stemming from the ambition to involve a broad base of employees as
means to increase the number of both induced and autonomous initiatives pursued in a company is
problematized.
Following is a discussion of the results that displays the diversity of approaches to involve a broad base of
employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives that is in use within the same
organization. A detailed comparison of what characterizes the routines in units that are more successful in
involving a broad base of their employees in innovation compared to those units that are less successful
reveals similar and different patterns. Two diverse approaches or bundle of routines emerge as particular
interesting for handling the selection and development of autonomous initiatives and their key
characteristics is further elaborated on.
48
Subsequently, an analysis of the consequences from using different types of management controls to
support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives is presented. The analysis is
taking its basis in the study of how performance measurement is designed and used in the MedTech
company. In addition, an analysis of the consequences from using different types of management controls
in both companies studied is performed and reflected upon. The analysis reveals that units that are more
successful in involving a broad base of their employees in innovation shows similar patterns in how
management controls are used compared to those units that are less successful. Of particular interest is
the difference in how the conflict related to the selection of management controls is handled and its
implications on the building of innovation capabilities.
Finally, the analysis of the appended papers reveals some interesting patterns when it comes to the use of
different types of result controls in the companies studied and the potential in skillfully using goal setting
to provide effective means to support both induced and autonomous initiatives in an organization is
discussed.
The focus on initiating new initiatives
The studies in this thesis revealed a strong focus on creating conditions aiming to support employees in
initiating both induced and autonomous initiatives. Paper IV showed that recognizing and creating
opportunities and ideas for innovation were highlighted as essential and were described by many
managers as the very essence of innovation. In addition to this observation it was also shown that the
dominant outcome when deliberate actions to involve a broad base of employees in innovation was taken,
is incremental process improvements.
The focus on triggering employees to take initiatives was by many respondents assumed to be the most
logical way to also initiate a planned effort to create conditions conducive to innovation. The managers
who were identified in Paper IV as being successful in involving a broad base of employees in innovation
engaged in deliberate actions to motivate and make people start to pay attention to innovation and to
search for new opportunities or novel solutions. Actions that encouraged people to speak up or to
communicate their ideas, that communicated the value of innovation and that created arenas for people to
more informally share information and knowledge were highlighted in this paper. Also, in the R&D units
in the TeleCom company characterized by a “gaming and inspiring” approach and in the MedTech
company, the initiation or variation creation of the innovation process were in focus as illustrated in
Papers I, II and V. Paper I, showed that a main focus in the MedTech company was on identifying new
ways to enable people to recognize and collaboratively create new opportunities.
As highlighted by van de Ven (1986), managing human attention in relation to innovation is defined as one
of the key problems in innovation management because mature organizations are “largely designed to
focus on, harvest, and protect existing practices rather than pay attention to developing new ideas” (van
de Ven,1986, p.591). A strong focus on supporting the initiation of innovation can hence be expected.
However, the amount of time and resources that is spent on trying to succeed in creating attention to
innovation is, however, quite surprising. The majority of managers does not question their organization´s
strong focus on initiation or idea generation but assumes that this is a necessity when aiming to become
more innovative. Particularly when involving employees that are not familiar with generating new ideas.
Organizational science studies also tend to make a strong association between innovation and creativity
and thus studies tend to focus on understanding how to create conditions supporting innovation equating
understanding how to support creativity and idea generation (e.g. Amabile, 1988; Mumford, 2000;
Mumford and Licuanan, 2004; Ekvall, 1996). Also, in companies aiming to build radical innovation
capabilities, providing support to the initiation of an in innovation process or the discovery phase is in
49
focus (OConnor and De Martino, 2006) as in companies aiming to build a capability for discontinuous
innovations (Bessant, 2008).
Studies on how innovation is initiated have shown that in order for new ideas to become realized, specific
actions are needed that can enable people to not only generate new ideas but to take actions to develop
these ideas further. Empirically based research has shown the importance of enabling actors to directly
confront the problem they are set to solve described (van de Ven et al., 1989) or involving customers and
external collaborators (von Hippel, 1986) and of avoiding making tasks too abstract (Dougherty, 1992).
Even if there is a willingness to take the risks associated to realizing autonomous initiatives it is not easily
done due to the lack of adequate technical and managerial knowledge and due to people’s inability to
overcome pre-judgement, basic assumptions and obsolete and traditional mental models and identify new
opportunities. Both basic assumptions of what the organization exist for as the values underlying for
instance its decision making and ways of organizing need to be challenged to facilitate breaking of people’s
mental models i.e. second order learning (Argryis and Schön, 1978). External “shocks” seems to be the
most common way to trigger such learning in organisations (Sinkula, 2002; Nonaka, 1994) or through
stimulating dialogues and by developing alternative future scenarios (Argyris, 1994). Paper IV showed that
few deliberate actions were undertaken that sought to directly confront employees with external customer
problems or directly support the creation of variations and generation of new ideas. The majority of
actions was indirectly supportive and aimed to create an enabling environment.
In addition, only few of the managers were found to have developed support for the selection and
development of new ideas i.e. there is a limited understanding of innovation as a process that requires
equal (if not more) attention to subsequent activities. The majority of the organizational science studies on
innovation also tend to neglect taking into consideration how an organization needs to be designed or
what routines need to be developed in order to build the capability to support idea selection and
development (e.g. Amabile, 1998; Mumford, 2000). Further this stream of literature tend to focus on
creating an environment that is conducive to innovation without taking in consideration how the
“structural context”, referring to Burgelman (1991), needs to be adapted to support induced and
autonomous initiatives respectively.
Burgelman (1991) and the corporate entrepreneurship literature in general (Dess et al., 2003), is in
contrast paying much more attention to the selection-development-retention phases. Creating
mechanisms that are supportive for the development autonomous initiatives is considered crucial in these
models. Attention on creating variation or idea generation is neglected since autonomous initiatives are
assumed to arise spontaneously in an organization. In the original model, autonomous initiatives are
triggered when “front-line” managers seizes new opportunities in the external environment (Burgelman,
1991). In the companies studied, involving all employees in seizing new opportunities regardless of
whether these employees are located at the front or not is emphasized.
The studies hence show that having the ambition to involve “everyone” in the innovation process requires
extensive time and resources in order to create the attention required. The great effort in companies on the
initiation of innovation without developing routines to expose employees to external stakeholder problems
and without developing routines for the selection and development of autonomous initiatives emerge as a
less effective innovation strategy taking in consideration that incremental process improvements is the
dominating outcome. At least if a company has the ambition to enable a continuous stream of both radical
and incremental innovations
50
Searching for selection, development and retention routines
Paper IV showed thus that most managers did not create support for the selection, development and
retention of autonomous initiatives. The lack of development routines is less of a concern when it concerns
minor changes to internal processes as these can many times be made with little effort. In addition, for
induced initiatives concerning existing products and technologies, the internal development processes and
routines are already in place in the form of new product development processes. However, developing
mechanisms to support the selection and development of initiatives that deviate from existing strategies
and operational models is a necessity if autonomous initiatives targeting for instance new business models
or services are to be realized (Burgelman, 1991).
Paper V showed that in two of the R&D units that were less successful in involving a broad base of
employees in innovation, the lack of routines to enable the development of ideas made people demotivated
when very few of their ideas were further developed. The lack of attention to selection and development
was raised as an important barrier for innovation in these units. This is similar to findings in studies of
how mature companies build radical innovation capabilities. O’Connor and DeMartino (2006) showed
how most mature companies are successful in creating a good “discovery” phase but fail to build up and
sustain subsequent phases to support the development and implementation of radical ideas. Research has
shown how bottom-up initiatives need the support from managers to survive (Day, 1994), and the
literature provides much advice for supporting elements for the development and experimentation phase,
including the use of a separate budget (Mumford and Licuanan, 2004) and a separate management team
that is responsible for determining the value of novel ideas (O’Connor and DeMartino, 2006), the use of a
high-weight team (Eisenhardt) or designing a separate organization (Tushman and O´Reilly, 1996).
The result from the comparison of different R&D units in paper V reveals that units more successful in
involving employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives, have selection and
development routines in place in contrast to the units less successful. The studies presented in this thesis
shed light on the alternative mechanisms that are used to select among autonomous initiatives and to
enable their development. Examples from Papers II, IV, and V include the dedication of time and
resources for one week of experimentation, formalized skunk work, prototype contests in conjunction to
“idea” contests, the use of an internal “Dragon’s Den” where the senior management team frequently
evaluates new ideas from any employee, the use of innovation coaches who help “find a home” for ideas, or
the use of special temporary “innovation” teams.
If the routines to initiate innovation and encourage people to engage in innovation were considered timeconsuming, the development of routines to make novel concepts accepted and to integrate them into the
product strategies in the companies were seen to require the most energy. These were also the routines
that were the most difficult to identify in the companies. In paper V, retention routines were identified in
the two units that were able to successfully support employees in both induced and autonomous
initiatives. These routines aimed to develop a shared mental model of what a new concept is and its place
in existing or upcoming product-development programs. Even though both companies studied make use
of formal processes to support new concepts in becoming accepted in product development (for instance
through detailed business opportunity plans), these routines were described as requiring support from a
broad range of less formal processes based on intense dialogues and networking. Paper V showed that
several retention routines were present in the two units that were most successful in involving a broad
base of their employees in innovation (e.g. the use of innovation coaches as translators of new ideas, the
use of an innovation management board, people having part-time assignments in both research and
development groups, and special recruitment rules with a maximum number of years for working in one
group). In the MedTech company, Papers II presented a routine aiming to support the retention of new
ideas, namely the use of an innovation management board. The use of an innovation management board
(or the active involvement of a senior management board as identified in one of the units in the TeleCom
51
company) is – in a similar line as O’Connor and DeMartino (2006) – suggested as an example of how to
ensure that autonomous initiatives receive adequate support and of how to evaluate which routines will be
supportive and which will be hindering. Multiple research studies show how hard it is for mature
companies to accept and value and to learn from more radical or disruptive opportunities due to their
deviant characters and because they occur so seldom and take such a long time before they reach the
market (if they do) that few individuals in a company are involved the whole journey (Berghman et al.,
2013). Interestingly, it is in this thesis shown that rules or routines for retention are identified and even
deliberately developed. The combination of making use of a group of people responsible for following up
on initiatives taken for more autonomous initiatives and the use of mechanisms to link employees with
resource allocators is found to characterize both units found to be successful in involving their employees
in innovation.
Diverse approaches based on different perspectives on innovation
Because the upper management in the companies studied in this thesis allows each unit in their
organizations to decide for themselves how to go about building innovation capabilities, somewhat
different approaches to reach the same outcome can be expected due to adaptations to different needs in
different units. However, the differences were found to be very diverse despite the units belonging to the
same internal organization as shown in Papers II and V.
In Paper II, revealed how different views of what constitutes innovation led to different levels of
involvement in the deliberate effort to build innovation capabilities. In Paper V, it was shown that despite
the fact that all four units studied belong to the same R&D organizations within the same company and are
targeting the same end-products and markets, three distinct approaches were identified. It was clear in the
studies that the main reason for the distinction in approach used in the different units was different
personal views on what innovation is and what it requires among the responsible managers and the
innovation managers/coaches. The approaches identified in the empirical material of Paper V are seen to
correspond to different perspectives on innovation as found in previous research. The “gaming and
inspiring” approach makes use of dedicated roles to support innovation, yearly contests, and organized
activities supported by IT –based idea management tools to inspire people in the organization to generate
new and creative ideas, and it associates innovation with creative problem solving (Amabile, 1998). The
“learning and norming” approach defines innovation as an outcome of productive knowledge sharing and
learning in accordance with organizational learning research (e.g. March, 1991), and in such an approach
measures are taken that focus on creating a learning environment. Finally, the “framing and fighting”
approach focuses on the socio-political aspects of innovation (Dougherty and Hardy, 1996; Jones and
Stevens, 1999), and emphasis is on creating opportunities for employees to directly confront internal and
external stakeholders. The approach used in the MedTech company is similar to the “gaming and
inspiring” approach even though the gaming elements are somewhat downplayed and innovation is
treated as a more or less systematic creative problem-solving process. Each approach can hence be viewed
as following existing innovation management logics. The studies show that when all units are allowed to
decide for themselves what actions to take to create innovation capabilities, the resulting approach will be
highly dependent on personal experiences and beliefs on what this means. The diverse range of
approaches argued for in research is hence found to be represented in practice. The acceptance of a broad
and inclusive definition of innovation as communicated in both companies, is suggested to contribute to
the very diverse interpretations on what actions to take and what routines to develop.
Having access to a broad range of approaches might even be productive for an organization because
innovation is known to be nurtured by differences in perspectives as well as differences in processes and
routines. However, for an organization to truly benefit from such diversity it is crucial to learn from the
experiences and outcomes in different units (Pentland and Feldman, 2005). Not the least because Paper V
52
showed that some approaches result in the development of routines that are less effective in supporting
employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives, which will be elaborated on in the next
section.
Comparing the characteristics of organizational routines
Paper V shows that units using very different approaches might succeed in involving a broad base of
employees in innovation. Also, the opposite is true; approaches that appear to be very similar are making
use of routines that have very different characteristics when performing a more fine-grained analysis.
When performing a cross-unit analysis of what routines are used in the R&D units in the TeleCom
company that are more successful in involving a broad base of employees in pursuing both induced and
autonomous initiatives, some interesting patterns emerge as shown in Paper V. The comparison shows
that despite the fact that the two more innovative units make use of rather diverse approaches (i.e. gaming
and inspiring vs. framing and fighting), more similarities arise when performing a detailed analysis of the
characteristics of the routines in use. The same is true for the less innovative units.
The two successful units were found to be cautious in considering all phases in an innovation process, i.e.
variation, selection, development, and retention, and to pay more attention to the latter phases compared
to the units that were less successful. In addition, the routines in both units can be described as semiembedded where the innovation routines are used frequently, are intertwined with each other and to
some extent also with normal operations, although they are distinct from the latter through their labeling
and the artifacts they use. In other words, the routines are considered both familiar and deviant at the
same time. The connectedness to the organization, as described by Kelley (2009) as being important for a
radical technology innovation program to become sustainable, might be described as having identified the
right level of embeddedness when looking at the organizational routine literature. Activities are not
dichotomized as either routines or not, but rather they are routinized to a certain level (Nelson and
Winter, 1982).
As a consequence, the risk of innovation becoming too closely associated to an event or campaign if these
are not linked to other routines in an organization is for the innovation routines to never become accepted
as an important routine in the organization. An interesting finding presented in Paper V is thus that the
“innovation as normal operations” was found to be as problematic as “innovation as an event”. This
highlights a key issue related to the use of innovation routines; these need to be perceived as both familiar
and deviant at the same time in order to become effective.
As Paper V points out, the type of artifacts created to support innovation requires careful management.
The usage of strongly deviating artifacts such as colorful t-shirts and gadgets were found to be partly
responsible for creating reluctance to innovation activities. This reluctance was particularly visible among
more senior engineers and business aspect representatives. This was considered problematic especially
when aiming to create effective routines to support the development of new ideas because both business
and technology aspects are critical particularly for autonomous initiative. Communicating innovation as
being more fun than normal work risks having the opposite effect, and innovation can become viewed as
less serious.
Further support for the importance of designing the routines according to the principles discussed above is
provided when analyzing the units that are less able to involve a broad base of employees in innovation. In
neither of these units were the routines in use targeting issues in all phases of the innovation process, and
the routines were either well embedded or weakly embedded, which stands in contrast to the semiembedded routines characterizing the more innovative units that were studied.
53
The Dragons Den routine used in one of the R&D units that is successfully supporting employees in
pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives deserves some extra attention. The Dragons Den
routine may come about as trivial. It is a simple routine inspired by a familiar TV program. Still, it
contains element that are considered crucial in terms of supporting both induced and autonomous
initiatives. It encourages employees to not only presenting a solution but framing the underlying problem
or opportunity. In addition, the routine is designed as a face-to-face meeting in front of a senior
management board who discusses and evaluates the idea and take decisions to allocate resources to those
ideas that are considered having most potential. The managers will never say no to any idea and everyone
is offered to visit the management board for re-evaluations. Everyone who is willing to keep on working on
their ideas will have the opportunity to do so. By naming the routine after a TV-show it creates room for
role plays and at the same time it is a real situation.
Such an approach is supported by research embracing the value of creating simple routines when dealing
with high levels of complexity (Brown and Eisenhardt,1997). This routine also exemplifies the importance
in considering both playful and serious elements in the routines supporting innovation. Contrary, to what
is many times assumed when discussing playfulness, playing is found to not be perceived as fun in the
sense of being characterized by only involving positive emotions. Playing means being exposed also to a
broad range of negative emotions as it many times involves elements of being challenged and being
exposed to surprises and tension (like when playing sports or games) as Mainemelis and Ronson (2006)
show in their extensive review of the literature linking play and creativity in organizations. Play do
however enable a safe environment for the expression of a wide range of emotions and this has shown to
stimulate intrinsic motivation and creativity (Amabile et al., 2005) as well as risk taking and learning from
errors (Glynn, 1994).Thus communicating that innovation is more fun than other tasks as was found to be
common in the units labelled as “gaming and inspiring” risks thus not only creating reluctance in many
potential innovators not defining the listening to external presenters or participating in an idea contest as
fun. It may even create false expectations. Also, research has shown that if more playful work routines are
introduced without any possibilities for employees to make use of the outcomes from these in their daily
work, it has a negative impact on performance (Mainemelis and Ronson (2006).
The routine is also characterized by its reliance on frequent face-to-face meetings that stimulate the
sharing of tacit elements of knowledge known to support knowledge creation and innovation (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995). Interestingly, Paper I also shows that semi-structured face-to-face meetings where
engineers and management exchanged their ideas both on what the future might look like and how to cope
with different possible scenarios (the “vernissage”) was seen to despite the many conflicting perspectives
and disagreements that were present, be perceived as the most valuable routine for both managers and
engineers in the environmental scanning process developed in the MedTech company. This routine hence
has elements similar to the Dragons Den routine (e.g. being simple, partly structured face-to-face meetings
involving the challenging of different perspective and opinions between resource holders and potential
innovators and its naming “vernissage” signals, like the “Dragons Den”, an allowance for some roleplaying). An organizations ability to develop routines involving these elements may, based in the studies
performed, be considered an important skill or even an innovation capability in itself. This is further
supported by literature showing how the use of strategic dialogues (Dougherty and Hardy, 1996) or
strategic play (Roos and Statler, 2004) are found to support innovation in mature companies. The type of
dialogues supported by the “Dragons Den” and “vernissage” routines also resembles the dialogues brought
forwards as crucial in the “creative routines” (Nonaka et al., 2006; Nonaka and Toyama, 2002); dialogues
where contradictions are synthesized and people openly share their opinions and beliefs and feedback
from actions taken are incorporated in the discussions.
When it comes to the number of routines, their longevity, and their complexity, the two units that were
most successful in supporting employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives have two
54
completely different approaches. One of the units makes use of few and simple routines. In the other unit,
new and many times rather complicated routines are frequently tried out and exchanged. From an
organizational routine perspective, the unit’s lack of long-lived routines to foster innovation can be viewed
as a failure in building capabilities (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Grant, 1991). However, it can also be that
such an approach enables the high level of dynamics, flexibility, and routine-breaking that has been shown
to be beneficial to innovation (Nonaka and Toyama, 2002). An important innovation routine identified in
this unit can be described as continuously designing, using, and learning from a wide range of routines.
The goal is thus not to identify the “best practice” but rather to develop the capability to master a
multitude of innovation routines. As a support for the innovation routine portfolio management, the use of
innovation performance measurement was used. Ideas were continuously ranked against certain criteria
and the linking of new ideas to the use of a certain routine was discussed in a dedicated group of
innovation coaches. The regular meetings created thus an effective routine for deciding what methods or
work practices to make further use of and when to implement a new one. Organizational routine literature
(Feldman, 2000; Feldman and Pentland, 2003) as is the literature related to “creative routines” (Nonaka
et al., 2006) shows the importance of reflecting upon the usefulness of a routine in order for it to act as a
vehicle for change and development in an organization.
This is an approach that is also followed in the MedTech company. Paper II shows how the
implementation and use of innovation performance measurements is a valuable complementary routine
when experimenting with new ways of working to support employees in pursuing both autonomous and
induced initiatives. In addition, Pavlov and Bourne (2011) suggest in a conceptual paper that the use of
performance measurements might have several important roles in relation to organizational routines. In
the next section, the roles of performance measurement are analyzed and problematized based on the
results from Papers II and III.
Using innovation performance measurement on a continuous basis
Paper II showed how managerial actions were triggered by metrics related to the output that was
generated in terms of new ideas, prototypes, and new conceptual projects in the organization. The same
was true when it came to measuring the amount of time spent on innovation-related activities. The
visualization of a dissatisfying trend in innovation-related output and time usage fueled discussions within
the management board and led to an understanding that action to support innovation was needed. This
role of spurring debates about what determines good performance is in line with previous studies of how
measurement impacts performance outside the innovation management field and is particularly
prominent when intangibles are measured (e.g. Mouritsen, 1998; Askim, 2004). Thus Paper II shows thus
that the value in using measurement lies in the fact that it stimulates a search for drivers of organizational
performance rather than its encouragement of a desired behavior. Börjesson and Elmquist (2011) pointed
to a need for a more engaged and less passive ‘management capability’ in established companies that are
seeking to improve their capability to innovate. Mumford et al. (2000) also showed the importance of
active management in order for innovation to happen, and O’Connor et al. (2006) showed a similar
importance for such management practices when it comes to building a capability for radical innovations
in mature companies. The use of innovation performance measurements as observed in the studies in this
thesis is suggested to be able to act as a stimulus for building a more active and engaged management by
supporting the reflection that stimulates the search for alternative actions to support innovation.
Paper II also illustrates how sensitive the use of action or result management controls in an R&D setting
is. The implementation and communication of new metrics made values and norms already present in the
organization more visible and triggered rather strong emotional responses from non-managerial
employees. This is well illustrated by the implementation of the metrics encouraging cross-functional
55
collaboration. This metric was considered by some of the engineers to be highly provocative because it
implicitly denied that the single inventor was an important source for high-quality ideas; however, for
others it was considered a relief because it was viewed to balance the traditional focus on individual
inventors. Engineers prefer relying on subtle ways of control such as establishing desired values and
norms i.e. personnel/cultural controls. It is preferable, however, for these values and norms to be based in
their professional community rather than on the company’s management policies (Bart 1991; Ouchi 1979).
Making measurement support learning and motivation to change behaviours appears to be difficult
particularly in R&D organizations, as shown in previous studies (Chiesa et al., 2009).However, if many of
the managers expressed a skepticism against the value in using performance measurement (not only in
relation to innovation), the engineers were eager to suggest how to improve both the design and use of it.
More qualitative measures were requested by the engineers and particularly a linking between activities
and what new knowledge it created indicating the importance of identifying metrics beyond result or
output.
Another finding from the study was that the continuous use of measurement over time revealed that
innovation requires continuous stimulation, otherwise other activities and issues related to ongoing
projects or manufacturing “take over” people’s attention and time. This finding was supported by the
outcomes from the investigations of one of the units in the TeleCom company that was less successful in
supporting employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives. This unit did not make use of
any direct managerial actions but dedicating time for innovation as presented in Paper V. This thesis thus
shows that it is not enough to “only” allow time for innovation. Additional actions are required.
Paper II highlights the importance of making use of metrics that measure other types of ideas beyond
those that are patentable (i.e. technology based) and those that only lead to small improvements. In other
words, the metrics should focus on more resource-demanding and non-patentable ideas such as new
services or business models if such ideas are desirable in an organization. The underlying reason for this is
that the historically strong link between patents and ideas in high-tech companies and the routines and
status associated with these tend to lead to an attention bias within the company. From an organizational
routine perspective, these ideas are backed up by well-embedded routines in these companies (Nelson and
Winter, 1982). This is especially obvious in the recognition and reward systems that are closely associated
with producing patents. In addition, measuring improvements in a company’s internal processes creates a
bias because these are the most easy to implement, track, and communicate, which was further illustrated
in Paper IV. This means that there is a bias for coming up with patentable solutions and process
improvements, and this bias is strengthened when only “new ideas” are measured without any
specification as to the types of ideas that are desired. Because the generation and realization of other types
of ideas require new organizational routines to be developed, it can be expected that other actions need to
be taken to support the influence that is desired from implementing new output metrics.
Another finding in the studies in this thesis is the value that is gained from measuring time spent on
innovation-related activities. Paper I found that this value legitimized spending time on these activities,
and Paper II revealed how innovation was valued and prioritized in different parts of the company and
gave rise to extensive discussions on the value of innovation-related activities. The degree of specificity in
how time for innovation should preferably be used, differed significantly between different units within
both companies. Innovation-related activities ranged from being expected to be performed as subversive
side activities – i.e. no time is explicitly dedicated to innovation – to being communicated as using a
defined number of man hours. In its most specified form, there are rules regarding when innovation
activities are expected to take place (i.e. certain innovation days as in two of the units in the TeleCom
company and in two of the units in the MedTech company). In addition, time spent on innovation is
sometimes monitored (as in the MedTech company) or not (as in the Telecom company). In the Telecom
company, time is measured but in the system in use it is not possible to register how much time is
56
dedicated to innovation-related activities. Instead this time becomes part is recorded as time dedicated to
continuous improvement. Dedicated time for innovation has been shown to be an important
organizational support for innovation (e.g. Amabile, 1996), and many companies are inspired by the
famous Google “time rule” that emphasizes a certain percentage of man hours to be spent on innovation
(Steiber and Arlänge, 2012). However, the consequences from degree of specificity of these time rules and
whether the use of a follow-up on how time is spent has an impact, has not been highlighted in previous
research. The result from the studies in this thesis suggests that paying attention to degree of specificity
when designing time rules is crucial; either too tight or too loose time rules was in Paper V suggested to
contribute to be less supportive. In addition, the studies in Paper I and Paper II suggest that measuring
time spent on innovation activities seem to have several positive effects.
Designing a support for change involving innovation measurement
Paper III describes the design of an innovation measurement system specifically dedicated to serving
teams that desire to become more innovative. The results from this study indicate that in order for an
innovation performance measurement to be supportive of changes in internal work routines, it is
important to consider both its design and implementation. The role for using indicators in the TeleCom
company is to promote learning, and the system is designed to be closely connected to goals and actions.
Earlier research has clearly shown that if measurement is to become motivating and to provide learning
opportunities, then groups and teams need to identify for themselves what to measure (Meyer, 1994). In
this way, measurement has a greater chance of becoming the learning device it is meant to be and less of
the coercive control tool it has long been seen as (Neely and Najjar, 2006). The extensive list of indicators
was developed to broaden the view on what innovation can mean in the Telecom company. In combination
with examples from what actions other organizations and companies have taken to become more
innovative, the triggering and guiding role of how innovation performance measurement was enhanced
compared to how it was deployed in the MedTech company.
In the TeleCom company, innovation performance measurement is adapted and used to support the needs
of specific teams. By allowing each team to select what to measure and what targets to aim for might risk
creating behaviors that are not aligned to current strategy (or to other teams). Previous research has
shown that if measurement is to have an impact on company performance it needs to be aligned to the
company’s strategy (Micheli and Manzoni, 2010). However, because the encouragement of autonomous
initiatives is intended to support strategy-deviating behaviors, a strategy unlinking and team-oriented
approach might be exactly what is needed in a company with the ambition to pursue both induced and
autonomous initiatives. This is especially the case in an R&D organization where organizational routines
for induced initiatives are already in place. Paper II revealed how different groups in the MedTech
company’s R&D organization either made use of measurement as way to legitimize existing ways of
working or as a way to trigger changes in behaviors depending on the level of ambition to create conditions
to support innovation. This result emphasizes that the predominant values and norms related to
innovation in a group will have a strong impact on how measurement is used despite such measurement
being connected to a common strategy. Earlier studies have also shown that implementing new measures
risks simply becoming a device to support the present state within an organization (Melnyk et al., 2010).
Once again, only implementing new metrics will not change anything.
The close linking of performance measurement to a company’s values and norms has been shown in
earlier studies to be important to consider when implementing performance measurements (e.g. Henri,
2006). This thesis also shows that when it comes to innovation, both how innovation is defined in the
organization and the personal beliefs of the people responsible for creating conditions conducive to
innovation need to be taken into consideration. This is where the linking of the selection of indicators to
57
the discussion of what innovation means and how it can be supported is needed. If innovation
performance measurement is to be used as a device to trigger and guide the organizational routines for
autonomous and induced initiatives in a team, the measurement needs to involve the team in the
discussion and selection of indicators, it needs to be unlinked from the company’s reward/compensation
system, and it needs to be closely linked to a team’s long-term and short-term planning. Furthermore,
implementing an innovation performance measurement system needs to be prepared to challenge existing
values and norms related to innovation, if changes in behaviors are desired.
Combining management controls to develop organizational routines
The studies showed how performance measurement, which is one of the most commonly used
management controls in use in contemporary companies, may act as a support in developing routines to
support innovation if its design and usage is carefully considered. It also showed that its usage is far from
common in the TeleCom R&D units studied and that many managers are reluctant in using it in relation to
innovation. Burgelman (1983, 1991) showed the importance of paying attention to the design of the
structural context in an organization that is aiming to support employees in pursuing both autonomous
and induced initiatives. Defining this context as a combination of management controls as suggested in
this thesis provides yet another way of viewing the results from the studies performed in this work. By
turning to the management control literature, a deeper understanding of the challenges related to building
innovation capabilities by involving a broad base of employees in innovation is created.
In the studies, it was observed that extensive effort was made to try to support people to become creative
and to realize new ideas, i.e. building innovation capabilities was seen to be closely associated with
creativity as discussed earlier. Managers in many of the units in the TeleCom company put great effort into
creating the right environment by communicating the value of innovation to the business, what innovation
is, and what innovation needs by gathering employees and sometimes also external stakeholders to discuss
problems and generate ideas and by allowing time to pursue both autonomous and induced initiatives.
Referring to the management control literature, personnel or cultural management controls is dominating.
In paper V, one of the units less successful in involving a broad base of employees in innovation only make
use of personnel/cultural controls while the other three units mixes these controls with action and result
controls. The other unit less successful in involving a broad base of employees in innovation is found to
only make use of rather complicated and structured routines involving a lot of actions controls
(procedures for a yearly idea contest, structured innovation days).Also the MedTech company seem to
have a preference towards the use of action controls and Paper I shows how the use of actions controls
increased over time.
Based on the study comparing the different R&D units in the TeleCom company in Paper V, combining
both personnel management and action or result-management controls emerges as crucial to consider
when aiming to involve a broad base of employees in both autonomous and induced initiatives. This is also
in line with Dougherty (2008) who proposes that companies are still seen to struggle to become more
innovative because innovation management researchers have a bias towards either social action or social
constraints. She highlights the importance of considering both social action and social constraint when
designing an innovation process. In Paper V, the different units were analyzed according to whether the
organizational routines developed were based on social actions or constraints. The units that were found
to be the most successful in involving a broad base of employees in innovation were found to make use of a
mix rather than be biased towards either side.
58
Conflicts related to using personnel and action controls when re-designing the
structural context
A conflict related to people’s preferences when it comes to social action versus social constraint in relation
to innovation is revealed. Paper V shows that there is an ongoing debate among actors dedicated to
improving conditions to support innovation (e.g. innovation managers, coaches, drivers, etc.) related to
what should be the target for innovation management or for the re-design of the structural context. This
gives rise to a conflict between what is referred to as “process-and-tools” versus more “people-oriented”
actors. The process-and-tool actors have a predilection for the implementation of lists, decision criteria,
structured methods, and tools, thus they tend to have a preference for action control (Merchant, 1998).
The people-oriented actors focus on empowering people by changing their thinking, and they enable the
generation of creative ideas and new ways of thinking by creating occasions for people to meet, i.e. they
tend to have a preference for personnel controls. It is argued in this thesis that such conflicting views
might not necessarily be a bad thing but rather might be supportive in the development of the structural
context in an organization. Research has shown the importance in using a moderate amount of structure
to support innovation (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997) and improvisation (Weick, 1998; Feldman and
Pentland, 2003). The processes and tools might serve as cognitive frames when dealing with high levels of
uncertainty and complexity (Adler and Chen, 2011). This is in alignment to what Jelinek and Schohooven
(1990) brought up as a view of structure as a flexible frames or tools rather than constraints found to
characterize people working in innovative companies. Also, the change-management literature has shown
that so long as conflicts concerning how to make changes do not devolve into personal attacks, different
opinions about the design and implementation of changes might actually be facilitating (REF). Tensions,
not the least in the context of innovation, are seen as a necessity, and it is how this tension is handled that
will determine whether it will support or hinder innovation (Ekvall, 1996). The conflict is handled
differently in the units studied in Paper V. Of particular interest is how a bias towards action controls in
one of the units in Paper V led to the development of a rather forceful “underground” movement of people
with a strong people-oriented or personnel control preference. The conflict was seen to give rise to rather
strong tensions among different actors that hampered rather than stimulated the innovation-related
activities because the conflict became more personal rather than focusing on the task at hand. In the unit
considered more successful in its mission to involve a broad base of employees in innovation, this conflict
instead led to the creation of a portfolio of productive innovation routines. The conflicting views were
accommodated by allowing the people who were active in creating conditions conducive to innovation to
develop a diverse range of routines. This portfolio of routines was seen to be managed using systematic
planning and measurement in order to stimulate learning from the different actions that were taken. This
way of solving the conflict present is closely in alignment to how Nonaka et al., (2006) and Nonaka and
Toyama (2002) describes how knowledge creation is achieved by synthesizing rather than dissolving
contradictions. The management of a portfolio of routines can hence, in a similar vein as the Dragons Den
and the “vernissage”, be described as having key elements of a creative routine.
Research on conflicts related to creating conditions conducive to innovation tends to focus on dealing with
conflicts that arise between innovation and what can be referred to as normal operations, and this conflict
is often referred to as a conflict between efficiency and innovation (March, 1991). However, in this thesis it
is argued that the conflict related to combining management controls in innovation deserves increased
attention. The reason for this is that the studies in this thesis show that this conflict can be as much of a
barrier for companies to become more innovative as the conflict between what is considered business as
usual and the innovation-related activities. This is especially the case because it was shown in paper V that
combining management controls rather than relying on one type is more effective in involving a broad
base of employees in innovation-related activities. Considering that management controls can be used to
influence behavior by different means, the management control literature that embraces management
control systems as packages of controls (e.g. Malmi and Brown, 2008) offers a perspective that allows
59
organizations to go beyond a dichotomist way of thinking. There does not have to be a conflict between
using “structure and tool” approaches and “people-oriented” approaches, nor between having a preference
for social actions and a preference for constraint. Understanding that influencing people’s behaviors can
be done by targeting personnel/culture, actions, and/or results a broader perspective on what it means to
control emerges along with the many design options it brings with it.
Goals as triggers and guides
Based on the empirical findings in this thesis, there appears to be a bias in practice towards the use of
personnel controls (such as communicating values and norms) on the one hand and action controls on the
other (such as designing procedures and organizational structures). The literature associating innovation
with creativity also has a bias towards using personnel controls, i.e. it is about creating the right climate
and relationship along with resources and time (Amabile, 2004; Mumford and Licuanan, 2004). The
literature associating innovation to a more or less rational business process has a bias towards using action
controls, i.e. it is about defining the crucial steps and providing the structure and tools to support the
realization of new ideas (e.g. Goffin and Mitchell, 2005; Bessant, 2003). Much less research is dedicated to
the role of result controls (Cardinal, 2001).
Result controls communicate a desired future (Merchant, 1985) and can do so with different degrees of
specificity ranging from making use of very clear and measureable targets in the near future to more
expressive and less achievable visions of an undefined future. The former belongs to a rational rhetoric
and is closer to action controls, while the latter is a way to influence people’s emotions and mindsets and
thus can be viewed as a type of personnel control. Making use of result metrics is considered a useful
approach when managing more complex and uncertain operations because such metrics do not specify
how to do things and only provide guidance by stating a desired result or output (Poskela and Martinsuo,
2009). However, as was evident from the review of previous research, the research results show conflicting
results when it comes to the value of using result controls in relation to innovation.
The studies on how the companies in this thesis use goals to support innovation provide some interesting
insights. As seen in Papers II, IV, and V, the different units and departments in both companies have
various preferences for how to set up and make use of innovation-related goals at the unit, team, and/or
individual level. Three of the units in the TeleCom company specifically communicated a vision that
includes innovation. However, only in one unit were specific targets and goals set up to support the
innovation work. Many of the managers were found to be skeptical of using goals as a tool to create
conditions to support innovation because they did not find them to be important drivers for innovation. In
a similar manner as measurements, goals are related to putting pressure on individuals and are associated
with a top down approach, which is considered to have a negative effect on innovation. These experiences
were, however, only valid for the use of innovation output goals. Fulfilling innovation goals in the yearly
performance review was shown in Paper II to be seen by management as a bonus rather than as something
that was important or necessary. Among the engineers interviewed for the paper, this view of innovation
as a less important activity to pursue was seen to make people less prone to take time to manage new ideas
compared to focusing on ongoing projects despite having allocated time to managing new ideas. Managers
found it hard to value activities that were only in focus for a small percentage of people’s time as is the case
when working with innovation. This attitude is argued to be problematic because it leads to the
paradoxical situation in which innovation is prioritized but because it is constrained in terms of time and
resources and because it constitutes such a small part of the working hours it is less valued.
In contrast to the negative experiences from using innovation output goals, the formulation of specially
designed goals as a way to trigger new thinking and more novel ideas is used in some units as described in
60
Paper IV. Such stretch goals (Sitkins et al., 2011) were argued to both help people understand where the
company or unit needs to go and to challenge existing solutions. Other managers as was shown in Paper IV
were found to make use of goals to support people’s dual roles in an employee-driven innovation strategy
where every employee is expected to generate, explain, and fight for their own ideas and to comment,
encourage, and help others with theirs. The breaking down of the company’s overall vision to be able to
communicate direction was found by some to be a useful approach in guiding innovation activities. Also,
as shown in Paper V, making use of clear performance goals for novel features that are developed in
collaboration with technology and business specialists and external customers is also considered valuable
in providing a shared understanding of what to try to achieve in a specific situation.
Existing goal-setting research and practice has been dominated by the set-up of performance or resultoriented goals, and the majority of studies performed have not distinguished between situations where
people can use existing knowledge and when there is a need to acquire new knowledge, i.e. in situations
characterized by a high level of uncertainty (Seitjs et al., 2004; Locke and Latham, 2006). In recent
studies, it was discovered that when a specific and challenging performance goal was set up in a situation
where new knowledge is required, it had a negative effect on individual/team performance. The reason
behind this is that our limited attention is distracted and the focus will be on becoming successful in
achieving the end result rather than learning what is needed to achieve the end-result. The use of specific
and challenging learning goals shows promising results in such situations. Learning goals are focused on
the exploration of strategies, ways of working, or methods to increase the effectiveness/efficiency of
individuals and teams. The purpose with using learning goals is to have individuals/teams systematically
search for new ideas, to stimulate reflection capability, and to experiment and test new ways to do things.
In other words, they encourage people to leave their “comfort zone”. When an individual/team masters a
new way of working and has acquired the new knowledge required, the use of performance goals is
applicable and preferable. The few studies that have investigated the use of learning goals have been
performed in experimental settings in schools, and there is a need to investigate the use of these goals in
real life settings (Locke and Latham, 2006). As proposed in Paper II, the set-up of learning goals might
provide a potential and promising organizational routine for companies because studies indicate that such
goals, rather than traditional performance or results goals, will support the experimentation and reflection
capability that is required when developing new ideas. 2
2
This suggestion is supported by the presentation of the concept of learning goals in two organizations (in the Telecom Company
and in a financial firm) by the researcher. Three groups of 10–15 managers were tasked with formulating learning versus
performance goals for their own teams, and the concept received positive response and has continued to created interest also in other
organizations.
61
Concluding discussion and implications for research
The focus on an active and ongoing effort to deliberately create conditions conducive to innovation in two
companies has generated insights regarding the development of organizational routines and how
management controls are used to involve a broad base of employees in innovation. The analysis shows that
engaging employees in innovation can be made possible through a conscious and creative design and
through the use of routines and controls. Routinizing innovation is possible in the sense that companies
are found to develop collective and recurrent ways of working that support employees in pursuing both
autonomous and induced initiatives. How such routinization is made differs depending on what phases or
activities in an innovation process these routines target. Furthermore, it has been shown that
understanding the implications from designing and combining management controls is a crucial
competence when an organization aims to build innovation capabilities to involve a broad base of
employees in innovation.
This thesis has several implications for research. The first implications are related to the building of
innovation capabilities to support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives. In
this thesis the organizational routine literature has been used as an analytical lens to generate knowledge
on how companies are building capabilities to innovate. Organizational routine research provides
important knowledge related to capabilities below the strategic level that much of the capability literature
deals with (Becker, 2004). This stream of literature was consulted to identify what characterizes
organizational routines and how routines are developed and enabled a fine-grained analysis of how
innovation capabilities are built in practice when involving a broad base of employees in innovation. The
insights generated from the studies presented in this thesis can be considered to complement existing
research on how capabilities are built by creating attention to what characteristics of organizational
routines that emerges as essential to consider for companies with an ambition to involve a broad base of
their employees in innovation. Existing literature tend to highlight the importance of certain management
practices or ways to organize (Bessant, 2003). What characterizes those collective practices that become
recurrent or routinized is however far less investigated as is how organizational routines in settings that
successfully support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives differ from
organizational routines in settings where such support is not found. It is not only “what” routines target
(e.g. like involving customers or setting goals) that needs to be taken in consideration. Paying attention to
details “how” this is performed i.e. details in both the design and use of the routines emerges as equally
crucial (e.g. like usage frequency, linking to other routines, design of artifacts in use, the handling of
playfulness and seriousness in face-to-face meetings etc.). Making use of the more recent and empirically
based organizational routine literature when studying how actors in companies go about to build
innovation capabilities when broaden the involvement in innovation is hence suggested to provide a
fruitful path for further research. Some contextual factors are, based in the studies suggested to be
interesting for further studies. For instance, whether or not there are any advantages or disadvantages
from an innovation perspective for an organization to be located outside the head office of a company as is
only briefly touched upon in paper V. Is it a coincidence that the two units successful in supporting
employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives are units located outside the head office?
Is a remote location enabling for more strategy-deviating initiatives to be taken? It would also be
particularly interesting to study if it is more or less effective for a business unit to have access to many
different product areas or for it to be responsible for a single product area when it comes to pursuing
autonomous initiatives.
The research performed hence has implications also for Burgelmans intra-organizational ecology model.
The specific innovation capabilities studied in this thesis can be related to what in literature is referred to
as elements in a corporate entrepreneurship strategy (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999). Burgelmans intra-
62
organizational ecology model (1991) which was selected as an analytical framework for the studies
performed in this thesis is an example of model within this stream of literature. A key challenge associated
to implementing a corporate entrepreneurship strategy has been identified to be related to achieving
acceptance for the routines that need to be deployed to support also autonomous initiatives (Dess et al.,
2003). This challenge also proved to be one that the actors in the companies studied were busy with. Some
insights complementing existing research on why acceptance of these routines is a challenge and how
acceptance may be overcome is generated in the research performed. Existing innovation management
literature tends to focus on how efficiency-focused normal operations routines or exploitation routines act
as barriers or make the implementation and use of more explorative activities and routines more difficult
(March, 1991). In corporate entrepreneurship literature, issues in focus are more related to resource
allocation and management power. Not being able to handle the conflict between the “process-and-tools”
versus “people-oriented” actors was in this thesis identified as an additional reason previously less
highlighted to why acceptance of these routines becomes problematic. Actors responsible for
implementing new ways of working were found to have different preferences to social actions and social
constraints or personnel and action/result controls which were found to potentially become hindering for
new routines to become accepted. The failing of designing organizational routines that are perceived as
both familiar and deviant is yet another reason that was identified in the studies and that is less explored
in previous research. This thesis provides hence some insights related to the hitherto neglected role of
capabilities in Burgelmans (1991) intra-organizational ecology model.
By focusing on the topic of innovation in the more recent empirically based organizational routine
literature (Feldman, 2000; Pentland and Feldman, 2005), this thesis also has implications for the
organizational routine literature. The research based models in this stream of literature are based on
studies of administrative and first-order routines (Feldman, 2000; Pentland and Feldman, 2003). Hence,
it was based in the review of the literature, questioned whether the models of Feldman (2000) and
Pentland and Feldman (2003) are also valid when studying routines not aiming to reduce variety, or to
stream-line or standardize processes but instead seek to increase variety and make decisions under a high
degree of uncertainty. In the review of previous research Nonaka and Toyama (2002) concepts of “creative
routines” was brought up as an indication on that these models are valid also for second-order routines.
Creative routines are those routines that are able to synthesize the efficiency of “traditional” routines with
creativity to ensure continuous knowledge creation. Creative routines are guided through the synthesis of
contradictions which is achieved using dialogues where people openly share their opinions and beliefs and
feedback from actions are incorporated (Nonaka et al., 2006). In this thesis some examples of what can be
referred to as “creative routines” have been identified. The “vernissage” and Dragons Den routine has
several elements as the routine of managing a portfolio of innovation routines. Although these routines
have very different characteristics, they are based on dialogues where very different beliefs and opinions
are openly addressed and feedback from actions is incorporated, key characteristics of creative routines
(Nonaka et al., 2006). Based in the result from the studies in this thesis it is suggested that a search for
how creative routines are developed in practice would be an interesting field for further research within
the field of organizational routines.
Implications on the innovation management control literature are also stressed. Specifically, this thesis is
able to shed light on the role of performance measurement as a tool to build capabilities to innovate. This
thesis complements the traditional literature on innovation performance measurement that has been
rather conceptual and has tended to develop tools for advanced audits rather than understanding how the
use of performance measurement can be designed and used to enable innovation on a continuous basis
(Adams et al., 2006). This thesis shows how the use of innovation measurement on a regular basis has an
indirect impact on performance by displaying the differences in values and norms and spurring debates
among managers that leads to them taking actions. The use of measurement is suggested to potentially
form an important element in an active management capability that was earlier called for when companies
63
have the ambition to build innovation capabilities (Börjesson and Elmqvist, 2012). The analysis of the
studies shows that monitoring time spent on innovation related activities is perceived as supportive in
those organizations that engage in such monitoring. Inspired by the Google-way of dedicating certain
man-hours to innovation (Steiber and Arlänge, 2012) many companies have sought to make use of similar
time rules. In this thesis it was shown that only allowing or ensuring time for innovation will not be
enough. Additional actions are needed.
The use of performance measurement also highlights the importance of developing routines that support
autonomous initiatives that can compete with existing routines supporting induced initiatives. It was
shown that not only efficiency-focused operational routines, but existing “innovation routines” that can be
a hindrance when aiming to create new innovation routines aiming to support autonomous initiatives. The
existing patent process in high technology companies and the rather straight forward continuous
improvement routines will be preferred paths when an organization is seeking more new ideas. Thus it is
necessary to develop routines and to implement metrics for alternative types of ideas that cannot easily be
patented or be considered improvements of existing products and processes.
Besides the implications on innovation performance measurement literature, this thesis shows the
potential in making a conscious use of management controls in relation to innovation as called for in more
recent literature (Davila and Oyon, 2009). The analysis in this thesis revealed the tendency in
organizations to either become overly structured and thus to make use of more and more action controls
over time or to only make use of personnel/cultural controls when aiming to stimulate induced and
autonomous initiatives. The latter approach is suggested to be a reflection of how mature companies
attempt to imitate young entrepreneurial companies when having an ambition to become more innovative
by supporting a broad base of employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives. The focus
on personnel controls is also supported by much of the organizational science literature devoted to
innovation that strongly associate innovation with creativity. An increased usage of action controls can be
considered to reflect contemporary company’s ambition to make innovation management more systematic
and manageable (or professionalized). Such tendency is supported by studies evaluating the emergence of
management controls in entrepreneurial companies (Davila, 2005). It has also been proposed to signal a
higher level of maturity of a high-involvement innovation in companies (Bessant, 2003). Both approaches
turned out to be less effective compared to using a mix of controls. The analysis in this thesis made use of
Dougherty (2008) model that emphasizes the need to consider both social constraints and social actions
when creating conditions conducive to innovation. Social constraints bias is proposed to be related to an
action control preference and social actions to personnel controls. The result from the analysis performed
brought attention to the need to make actors involved in designing the structural context to support
employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives (Burgelman, 1991) become aware of their
personal preference when it comes to using personnel controls and actions controls.
Finally based on the results in this thesis, the potential in using result controls to support both induced
and autonomous initiatives was identified. Several ways of using goals were identified in the studies
presented in this thesis. From using stretch goals to stimulate more novel ideas, to the use of goals on an
individual level to guide employees in their dual roles to both generate and develop ideas, the use of result
metrics, to the use of clear performance goals in order to create a shared understanding among different
shareholders on what to achieve during the development of a new idea. Goals hence serve different
purposes or have different impacts depending on how they are formulated. The research in this thesis
highlights that conscious and creative goal setting might in a similar vein as the use of performance
measurement form a valuable organizational routine to support employees in pursuing both induced and
autonomous initiatives. An interesting path for further research in innovation management control
suggested in this thesis is hence studies on the role of different types of result controls to support
64
employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives. This is further backed up by more recent
goal-setting research that has called for the need to understand how goals need to be formulated to be
supportive in situations characterized by a high degree of uncertainties (Locke and Latham, 2006).
65
Conclusions and implications for practice
Conclusions
Building the capabilities to involve a broad base of employees to drive ideas in any area and of any
magnitude of change in contemporary companies is a true challenge. Especially because it entails the
implementation of new ways of working that often deviate significantly from the work the majority of
employees normally do. In addition, as is shown in this thesis, using organizational routines to support
both induced and autonomous initiatives requires careful considerations both when it comes to the design
of the routines and how to combine different types of management controls.
Three research questions were addressed in this thesis. The first question investigated what characterizes
the use of organizational routines to support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous
initiatives. The research identified four general characteristics. First, the responsible actors tend to focus
on the initiation of innovation rather than on developing routines for selection, development, and
retention, i.e. for the latter phases in an innovation process. This indicates that either induced or
autonomous initiatives are seldom triggered spontaneously as assumed in the Burgelman model (1991). By
using an intrapeneurial lens that focuses more on the scarcity of resources for developing initiatives rather
than a lack of creativity – as much of the organizational innovation literature does – this thesis questions
the disproportionately large effort spent on encouraging employees to initiate new initiatives while
neglecting the development of organizational routines for their selection and development. This was
further underlined by the presence of routines for the latter phases in settings found to be successful in
supporting their employees in both induced and autonomous initiatives compared to those settings where
such support was not found.
Second, it is seldom taken into account whether the routines developed are supportive for induced or
autonomous initiatives or both. Responsible actors tend to assume that innovation is nurtured by the same
actions despite the degree of novelty of the ideas. This assumption is also nurtured by dominant
innovation management research literature that rarely investigates or presents models on how to support
innovation or ideas of different degrees of novelty. This thesis stresses that the close link between
innovation and creativity in much of the literature ignores the need to better understand how to provide
support for the less divergent selection, development, and retention phases of the innovation process.
Third, the majority of actions taken in the studied companies focused on managing relations rather than
structures. This means that the implementation and design of face-to-face meetings where people from a
group or from a unit meet and share information and knowledge is the most common type of
organizational routine used. It was found that outside stakeholders are rarely involved in such meetings. If
outside stakeholders are invited, the focus is usually on more immediate problem solving or information
sharing through tech-talks and presentations. The importance for innovation on creating conditions that
are conducive for people to share and create knowledge is well supported in the literature. The significant
amount of attention paid to knowledge sharing with very few external influences being actively involved in
creating future solutions is suggested to be one of the reasons for the dominance of process improvement
outcomes.
Fourth, the conflicting views on how to best manage and organize for innovation that are present in the
research literature were also found to be present within the studied companies. leads to diversity in what
actions are taken in different unit or groups in the companies. The reason is due to different levels of
ambition when it comes to making changes in ways of working and due to different actors understandings
and experiences of what is required for innovation to be successful. Having access to a broad range of
approaches might be productive for an organization because innovation is known to be nurtured by
66
differences in perspectives as well as differences in processes and routines. However, for an organization
to truly benefit from such diversity it is crucial to learn from the experiences and outcomes in different
settings. Not the least because studies comparing different approaches result in the development of
routines that are found to be less effective in supporting employees in pursuing both induced and
autonomous initiatives.
The second research question dealt with the consequences from using different types of management
controls when supporting employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives. Three
important observations were made in the studies in this thesis. The first two concern the use of different
types of management controls, and the third concerns how performance measurement is used.
The first observation made is that personnel and actions controls dominate. The former is emphasized in a
higher degree than the latter in the Teletech company compared to the MedTech company reflecting
different biases towards social actions and social constraints of the actors involved in the development of
organizational routines for innovation in each organization. An overuse of actions controls that seems to
be more at risk when organizational routines develop over time, is considered de-motivating. However, an
overuse of personnel controls is found to be equally in-effective in supporting employees in pursuing both
induced and autonomous initiatives.
The second observation made is that the use of result controls to support employees in pursuing both
induced and autonomous initiatives is manifold. The use of result controls ranged from not being used at
all, being used although not considered being supportive, forming a crucial part of the evaluation of both
ideas and actions taken, to being used as a means to generate more creative solutions. Taking in
consideration the more recent literature in goal setting, it is in this thesis suggested that investigating the
influence from using different types of goals provides a productive path for future research.
The third observation relates to the consequences from using performance measurement. This thesis
shows that using performance measurements can potentially support the learning and reflection needed to
enable the development of routines. The research shows that the use of specific result metrics is less
valuable when it comes to influencing employee behavior, but they are useful as indirect triggers for
managerial actions. This is particularly true if time spent on innovation activities is frequently monitored
and interactively analyzed. The use of performance measurement revealed that it is not enough to “only”
allow time for innovation. Additional actions are required. Using measurement also made it clear that
asking for (by measuring) “new ideas” risks leading to a dominance of small process improvement ideas
and patentable ideas. If other types of ideas are desired, the metrics implemented should specify these.
Furthermore, the research showed that the innovation performance measurement system should not be
too closely linked to other performance measurement systems or reward systems in an organization. To
support its implementation, measurement should also preferably be closely connected to the particular
needs of the team that seeks to benefit from it.
The final and third question in this thesis concerned the characteristics of the organizational routines that
are used in settings that are able to support and those that are not able to support employees pursuing
both induced and autonomous initiatives. The organizational routines that support employees pursuing
both induced and autonomous initiatives were found to have four common characteristics. The first
characteristic relates to what activities in the innovation process are targeted. The results of this thesis
stress the need to develop routines for selection, development, and retention and thus go beyond creating
support for the initiation or variation creation phase alone. The results from the studies show how such
routines can be developed to support more autonomous initiatives.
67
The second characteristic concerns the level of embeddedness, which in this thesis is defined in terms of
how frequently a routine is used, how it links to other routines, and to what extent the artifacts in use are
able to handle the level of familiarity required. The research shows that it is crucial to achieve semiembeddedness i.e. the routines need to be somewhat, but not too strongly, linked to each other and to
other routines in the organization and need to be used frequently and be designed so that they can be
distinguished from people’s everyday activities however not deviate too much from normal routines so as
to avoid deterring important participants.
The third characteristic concerns the importance of making use of both personnel/cultural and action
management controls instead of being biased to one type in order to support employees in pursuing both
induced and autonomous initiatives.
Finally, creating face-to-face meeting routines that put resource owners and/or customers in direct contact
with innovators to evaluate and develop new ideas was found to be a crucial characteristic. These routines
provide opportunities for debates and discussions on strategic, business, and technology issues and enable
new ideas to not only be evaluated but also to be further developed. The research in this thesis also showed
that such routines are considered valuable despite how emotionally challenging many actors experience
these meetings to be, and this is supported by the emerging literature on the role of play in innovation.
This thesis shows how the use of two very different approaches is able to take these four characteristics
into consideration. In one of the units, a very simple routine for selecting new ideas involving the senior
management and potential innovators was combined with the use of a small team of engineers working
closely with customers to develop more novel prototypes. In another unit, the use of a team of innovation
coaches systematically developed and learned from a portfolio of routines targeting the variation and
development of induced and autonomous initiatives. In addition, these coaches connected potential
innovators with resource holders to ensure that good ideas were understood and valued in the
organization.
Implications for practice
The research presented in this thesis has been conducted with the dual purpose of serving both theory and
practice. This means that the research performed also aims to produce actionable knowledge, i.e.
knowledge useful for those individuals who are tasked with making things happen in practice. The studies
in this thesis show that despite the ambition to support both induced and autonomous initiatives, the
dominant outcome in most organizations is incremental process improvements. In large high-technology
companies support for induced initiatives is available. Routines for supporting any employee in pursuing
more autonomous initiatives are less common, thus the development of such routines is suggested to be an
important target. Implications for practice in this thesis focus on what actions can be taken by managers,
assigned employees or consultants who are responsible for defining actions to be taken to build innovation
capabilities when involving a broad base of employees to drive ideas in any area and of any magnitude of
change in large mature organizations.
First of all, this thesis stresses that making innovation everyone´s business requires the actors responsible
for such task to critically and creatively re-think what routines and management controls are, and can be,
in order to truly support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives. It is crucial to
accept that routines and management controls are not necessarily harmful for innovation. Routinizing
innovation means deliberately ensuring that ways of working to support innovation become well
established within the organization yet are able to continue to support the creation of variations. In more
recent literature, routines have been shown to be the vehicle for both change and development, and
viewing routines only as a hindrance to innovation has become less accepted. Organizational routines are
68
the basic elements of organizational capabilities. If an organization wishes to build innovation capabilities
that support employees pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives, it needs to understand how to
develop useful innovation routines.
In a similar vein, management controls are shown to have very different roles and to influence routines
through different mechanisms. Management controls are far from being the constraints that they have
traditionally been viewed as. Understanding that management controls can influence behavior as an
antecedent or trigger (i.e. personnel control), by providing guidance (i.e. action control), or by setting
expectations (i.e. result control) is essential. By adopting a more comprehensive view of the different types
of management controls that are available, controls can be designed and combined to more effectively
support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives.
Second, in addition to re-thinking routines and management controls in relation to innovation, this thesis
suggests that the key characteristics of the routines identified in settings that are able to support their
employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives provide useful support for practitioners.
These characteristics can be viewed as basic design requirements to be used by actors when aiming to
develop organizational routines supporting employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous
initiatives. By starting with these requirements when designing the routines, the resulting routines are
suggested to have a greater chance of becoming truly supportive:
To be successful, the routines that are developed to support innovation need to target the selection,
development, and retention phases of an innovation process. Furthermore, the routines need to be
somewhat, but not too strongly, linked to each other and to other routines in the organization and need to
be used frequently. The routines need to be designed so that they can be distinguished from people’s
everyday activities and thus create the attention required for people to engage themselves in innovation.
However, they must not deviate too much from normal routines so as to avoid deterring important
participants. In addition, routines that provide space for resource holders and/or customers to meet with
potential innovators to actively evaluate and develop new ideas need to be considered. Involving elements
of play in these routines is suggested to provide additional support. Finally, the studies in this thesis
highlighted the importance of making use of both personnel or indirect managerial actions and action
controls, i.e. more direct managerial actions. Hence, it is as essential for the actors who are responsible for
supporting employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives to become aware of their
personal bias towards either personnel or action controls in order to ensure a mix of controls are used.
In this thesis, two very different approaches and uses of routines were identified, and both were found to
successfully support employees in pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives. A more fine-grained
analysis of the similarities between these routines showed that routines can look very different on the
surface but share similar characteristics and design requirements. This thesis emphasizes that taking into
consideration the design requirements discussed above provides room for creativity on how to design
routines and use management controls to support innovation. Taking a design perspective on the building
of innovation capabilities hence provides organizations with the tools to develop unique and hard-toimitate capabilities.
Finally, this thesis also has implications for practice when it comes to the design of the commonly used
management control systems of performance measurement and planning. Based on the research
performed in this thesis, it is suggested that if performance measurement is to be used to support
employees pursuing both induced and autonomous initiatives it requires consideration of both what to
measure and how to implement it. Making use of innovation performance measurements can act as a
valuable tool to support the development of a portfolio of innovation routines in an organization. This
thesis shows that using performance measurements can support the learning and reflection needed to
69
enable the development and variation of routines. Thus, performance measurement can potentially
become a useful organizational routine in itself to support both induced and autonomous initiatives.
Measuring time spent on innovation activities was found to act as a legitimizer for spending time on these
activities and was found to be the metric that spurred the most discussions among the management board
and thus indirectly acted as a trigger for managerial actions. Also, measuring the number of ideas beyond
those that are patentable or those only concerned small improvements is suggested to support
autonomous initiatives.
When it comes to planning, the investigations performed in this thesis suggested that practitioners should
experiment with using different types of goals. Depending on how goals are formulated, they are able to
stimulate different types of behaviors in different phases of an innovation process (from triggering the
generation of novel ideas to supporting the development as well as the retention of autonomous
initiatives). Of particular interest is to understand how to make use of so-called learning goals that are
found to support experimenting and the learning of new strategies as a complement to the use of
performance goals that strive to constrain actions toward a specific outcome. Taking into consideration
that the development of autonomous initiatives undoubtedly requires people to be “groping in the dark”
for prolonged periods of times, the use of learning goals might make such experiences more bearable. Or
even fun, depending on what makes you tick.
70
References
Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006) Innovation management measurement: A review.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (1), 21-47.
Adler, P. S. and Chen, C. X. (2011) Combining creativity and control: Understanding individual motivation
in large-scale collaborative creativity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36, 63-85.
Adler, P. S. and Borys, B. (1996) Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41 (1), 61-89.
Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C. S. (2004) Management accounting as practice. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 32, 1-27.
Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. (2004) Interfaces of control. Technocratic and socio-ideological control in
a global management consultancy firm. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29 (3-4), 423-444.
Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2000) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research.
London: Sage.
Amabile,T. M. (1998) How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review, 5, 77–87.
Amabile, T. M. (1988) A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 10, 123-16.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M. (1996) Assessing the work environment for
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5), 1154-1184.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B. and Kramer, S. J. (2004) Leader behaviors and the work
environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15 (1), 5-32.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., and Staw, B. M. (2005) Affect and creativity at work,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.
Anthony, R.N. (1988) The management control function. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Anthony, S. Eyring, M. Gibson, L. (2006) Mapping your Innovation Strategy. Harward Business Review.
84 (5), 104-113. Är denna kvar???
Argyris, C. (2004) Reasons and Rationalizations: The Limits to Organizational Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Argyris, C. (1977) Organizational learning and management information systems. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 2, 113-123.
Arthur, J.B., Huntley, C.L. (2005) Ramping up the organizational learning curve: assessing the impact of
deliberate learning on organizational performance under gainsharing. Academy of Management Journal
48 (6), 1159-1170.
Askim, J. (2004) Performance management and organizational intelligence: adapting the balanced
scorecard in Larvik municipality. International Public Management Journal, 7 (3), 415-438.
Atkinson, R. (1999) Project Management: Cost, Timeand Quality, Two Best Guesses and a Phenomenon,
Its Time to Accept Other Success Criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17 (6), 337–342.
71
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995) An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product
performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12 (4), 275-293.
Baker, W. and Sinkula, J. (2002) Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and Product Innovation:
Delving into the Organization's Black Box. Journal of Market Focused Management, 5 (1), 5-23.
Basadur, M.S., Graen, G.B. and Green, S.G. (1982) Training in creative problem solving: Effects on
ideation and problem finding in an applied research organization. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 30, 41–70.
Barley, Stephen (1986) Technology as an occasion for structuring. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31
(1), 78–109.
Bart, C. (1991) Controlling New Products in Large Diversified Firms: A Presidential Perspective. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 8 (1), 4-17.
Becker, M. C. (2004) Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate
Change. 13 (4), 643-678.
Beitin, B.K. in chapter 16, The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. SAGE
Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Berghman, L., Matthyssens, P., Streukens, S., and Vandenbempt, K. (2013) Deliberate learning
mechanisms for stimulating strategic innovation capacity, Long Range Planning, 46 (1), 39-71.
Bessant, J.R., Lamming, R.C., Noke, H. and Phillips, W.E. (2005) Managing innovation beyond the steady
state, Technovation, 25 (12), 1366 – 1376.
Bessant, J. (2008) Dealing with discontinuous innovation: the European experience. International.
Journal of Technology Management, 42 (1-2), 36-50.
Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997) High-involvement innovation through continuous improvement.
International Journal of Technology Management, 14 (1), 7-28.
Bessant, J., Stramm, B. V. and Moeselein, K. M. (2011) Selection strategies for discontinuous innovation.
International Journal of Technology Management, 55 (1-2),156-170.
Betsch, T., Fiedler, K. and Brinkmann, J. (1998) Behavioral routines in decision making: the effects of
novelty in task presentation and time pressure on routine maintenance and deviation, European Journal
of Psychology, 28, 861-878.
Birkinshaw, J., Bouquet, C. and Barsoux, J-L. (2011) The 5 Myths of Innovation. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 52, 43-50.
Björk, J., Boccardelli, P. and Magnusson, M. (2010) Ideation Capabilities for Continuous Innovation.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 19 (4), 385-396.
Blessing L.T.M. and Chakrabarti A. DRM, a Design Research Methodology, 2009 (Springer, London).
Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (2003) From continuous improvement to continuous innovation: a
(retro)(per)spective. International Journal of Technology Management, 26 (8), 805-827.
Bourne, M., Neely, A., Mills, J. and Platts, K. (2003) Implementing performance measurement systems; a
literature review. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 5 (1), 1-24.
Brannick, T. and Coghlan, D. (2007) In Defense of Being “Native”: The Case for Insider Academic
Research. Organizational Research Methods, 10 (1), 59-74.
72
Brown, J. and Duguid, P. (1998) Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40 (3), 90-111.
Brown, S. L., and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997) The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and
Time-paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, (1), 134.
Brown, M.G. and Svenson, R.A. (1998) Measuring R&D Productivity. Research-Technology Management,
41, 30–35.
Broy, M. Automotive software and systems engineering. Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design,
2005. MEMOCODE '05. Proceedings. Third ACM and IEEE International Conference on, 11-14 July 2005
2005. 143-149.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., Business Research Methods revised edition (Oxford University Press, 2007)
Bunge, M. (1993) Realism and Antirealism in Social Science. Theory and Decision, 35 (3), 207-235.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983) A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (2), 223-244.
Burgelman, R. A. (1991) Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation:
Theory and Field Research. Organization Science, 2 (3), 239-262.
Burgelman, R.A. (2002) Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47 (2), 325-57.
Burgelman, R. A., and Sayles, L. R. (1986) Inside corporate innovation: Strategy, structure, and
management skills. New York, NY: Free Press.
Börjesson, S. and Elmqvist, M. (2011) Building innovation capabilities: A longitudinal study of a project at
Volvo cars. Creativity and innovation management. 20 (3), 171-184.
Cardinal, L. (2001) Technological Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Use of Organizational
Control in Managing Research and Development. Organization Science, 12(1), 19-36.
Carlile, P.R. (2002) A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New
Product Development. Organization Science, 13 (4), 442-455.
Chiesa, V., Coughlan, P. and Voss, C.A. (1996) Development of a Technical Innovation Audit. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 13 (2), 105–136.
Christensen, (1997), The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technolo-gies Cause Great Firms to Fail.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Coghlan, D. (2003) Practitioner Research for Organizational Knowledge: Mechanistic- and OrganisticOriented Approaches to Insider Action Research. Management Learning, 34, 451–63.
Cohen, M. and Bacdayan, P. (1994) Organisational routines are stored as procedural memory: evidence
from a laboratoty study. Organization Science, 5, 554-568.
Cooper, R. G. and E. J. Kleinschmidt (1986) An investigation into the new product process - steps,
deficiencies, and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3, (2), 71-85.
73
Corley, K. and Gioia, D. (2011) Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical
contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 12-32.
Crossan, M. M. and Apaydin, M. (2010) A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A
Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47,1154-1191.
Czarniawska, B. (2014) Social Science Research: From Field to Desk, Sage Publications Ltd.
D’Adderio, L. (2008) The performativity of routines: theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed
agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37 (5), 769–789.
Damanpour, F. (1991) Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3). 555-590.
Davila, T. (2000) An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems design in new product
development, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25 (4-5), 383-409.
Davila, T. (2005) An exploratory study on the emergence of management control systems: formalizing
human resources in small growing firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 223-248.
Davila, T., Epstein, M.J., Shelton, R. (2006) Making innovation work: How to manage it, measure it and
profit from it. Pennsylvania, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
Davila, T., Foster, G. and Oyon, D. 2009. Accounting and Control, Entrepreneurship and Innovation:
Venturing into New Research Opportunities. European Accounting Review, 18, 281-311.
Day, D. (1994) Raising Radicals: Different Processes for Championing Innovative Corporate Ventures.
Organization Science. 5 (2), 148-172.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln Y. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publication Inc.
Dewar, R.D. and Dutton, J.E. (1986) The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical
Analysis. Management Science, 32 (11), 1422-1433.
Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J. and Lane, P. J. (2003) Emerging Issues
in Corporate Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29 (3), 351-378.
Dougherty, D. and Hardy, C. (1996) Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations:
overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5), 1120-1153.
Dougherty, D. (1992) Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms. Organization
Science, 3 (2), 179-202.
Dougherty, D. (2008) Bridging Social Constraint and Social Action to Design Organizations for
Innovation. Organization Studies. 29 (3), 415-434.
Duncan, R.B. (1976) The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R.H.
Kilmann, L.R. Pondy and D. Slevin (eds.): The Management of Organization, 1, 167-188, New York: NorthHolland.Ford.)
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Tabrizi, B. (1995) Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global
computer industry, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (1), 84-110.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E. (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
74
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Martin, J. A. (2000) Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management
Journal. 21 (10-11), 1105–1121.
Ekvall, G. (1996) Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology,5, 105–123.
Ettlie, J. E. (1983) Policy implications of the innovation process in the U.S. food sector. Research Policy,
12, 239-267.
Feldman, M. S., and Pentland, B. T. (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of
flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly. 48 (1), 94–118.
Feldman, M. S. (2000) Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science,
11 (6), 611–629.
Fog, J. (1994) Med samtalen som utgangspunkt. Det kvalitative forskningsinterview. København:
Akademiske Forlag A/S
Francis, D. and Bessant, J. (2005) Targeting innovation and implications for capability development.
Technovation, 25 (3), 171-183.
Garapin, A. and Hollard, A (1999) Routines and incentives in group tasks, Journal of evolutionary
economics, 9 (4), 465-486.
Giddens, A. (1982) Profiles and critiques in social theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gimbert, X., Bisbe, J. and Mendoza, X. (2010) The role of performance measurement systems in strategy
formulation processes, Long Range Planning, 43 (4), 477-497.
Glynn, M. A. (1994) Effects of work task cues and play task cues on information processing, judgment, and
motivation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 34–45.
Goffin, K. and Mitchell, R. (2005) Innovation Management:Strategy and Implementation Using the
Pentathlon Framework. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Grafton, J., Lillis, A.K. and Widener, S.K. (2010) The Role of Performance Measurement and Evaluation in
Building Organizational Capabilities and Performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 689–
706.
Grant, R. M. (1991) The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy
formulation. California Management Review, 33 (3), 114–135.
Gulati, R. (2007) Tent-Poles, Tribalism, and Boundary Spanning: The Rigor-Relevance Debate in
Management Research. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4), 775–782.
Gummesson, E. (2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hales, M. and Tidd, J. (2009) The practice of routines and representations in design and development.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 18 (4), 551-574.
Hallgren, E. W. (2009) How to Use an Innovation Audit as a Learning Tool: A Case Study of Enhancing
High-Involvement Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18 (1), 48-58.
75
Henri, J. (2006) Organizational Culture and Performance Measurement Systems.
Accounting,Organizations and Society, 31 (1), 77–103.
Hodgson, G. M., and Knudsen, T. (2004) The firm as an interactor: Firms as vehicles for habits and
routines. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14 (3), 281–307.
Howard-Grenville, J.A. (2005) The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency
and Organizational Context. Organization Science. 16 (6), 618-636.
Howells, J. (2008) New directions in R&D: current and prospective challenges. R&D Management, 38 (3),
241-252.
Jaruzelski, B, Loehr, J., Holman, R. (2011), The Global Innovation 1000: Why Culture is Key, in
strategy+business, 65 et al., 2011
Jelinek, M. and Schoonhoven, C. (1990) The Innovation Marathon: Lessons From High Technology Firms,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Jones, O. and Stevens, G. (1999) Evaluating failure in the innovation process: the micropolitics of new
product development. R&D Management, 29 (2), 167-178.
Kanter, R.M. (1983) When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective, and social conditions for
innovation in organizations’, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational
Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 169-211.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Kelley, D. (2009) Adaptation and Organizational Connectedness in Corporate Radical Innovation
Programs. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26 (5), 487-501.
Kerssens-van Drongelen, I.C. and Bilderbeek, J. (1999) R&D Performance Measurement: More than
Choosing a Set of Metrics. R&D Management, 29 (1), 35–46.
Kesting, P. and Ulhøi, J.P. (2010) Employee-driven innovation: extending the license to foster innovation.
Management Decision. 48. (1), 65 – 84.
Kihlander, I., Nilsson, S., Lund, K., Ritzén, S., and Norell Bergendahl, M. (2011) Planning Industrial PHD
Projects In Practice: Speaking Both 'Academia' and 'Practitionese', Proceedings of the 18th International
Conference on Engineering Design, August 15-18, Copenhagen, Denmark.
King, N. (1992) Modelling the innovation process: An empirical comparison of approaches. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65 (2), 89-100.
Kogut, B., and Zander, U. (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of
technology. Organization Science, 3 (3), 383–397.
Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S. (2009) Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing,
Los Angeles, Calif., Sage.
76
Labatut, J., Aggeri, F., and Girard, N. (2012) New Practice Creation Discipline and Change: How
Technologies and Organizational Routines Interact in New Practice Creation. Organization Studies. 33 (1),
39-69.
Latour, B. (1996), Aramis or the love of technology, Harvard University Press, 1996, US.
Lebas, M.J. (1995) Performance Measurement and Performance Management. International Journal of
Production Economics, 41 (1-3), 23–35.
Leenders, R. T. A. J., van Engelen, J. M. L. and Kratzer, J. (2007) Systematic Design Methods and the
Creative Performance of New Product Teams: Do They Contradict or Complement Each Other? Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 24, 166-179.
Lenox, M. and King, A. (2004) Prospects for Developing Absorptive Capacity through Internal
Information Provision. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 331-345.
Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S. (1998) The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California
Management Review, 40 (3), 112-132.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities - a paradox in managing new product
development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125.
Levinthal, D. A. and March, J.G. (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14,
95–112.
Locke, E.A., and Latham, G.P. (1990) A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. 2006. New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15 (5), 265-268.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E. and Chen, Z. (2011) Factors for Radical Creativity, Incremental Creativity, and
Routine, Noncreative Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 96 (4), 730-743.
Mainemelis, C. and Ronson, S. (2006) Ideas are born in fields of play: towards a theory of play and
creativity in organizational settings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 81–131
Malmi T. and Brown, D. A. (2008) Management control systems as a package—Opportunities, challenges
and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19, 287-300.
March, J.G. (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organization Science. 2 (1),
71-87.
March, James G. and Herbert A. Simon (1958), Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Maute, M. F. and Locander, W. B. (1994) Innovation as a socio-political process: An empirical analysis of
influence behavior among new product managers. Journal of Business Research, 30 (2), 161-174.
McCarthy, I. P., Tsinopoulos, C., Allen, P., Rose-Anderssen, C. (2006) New Product Development as a
Complex Adaptive System of Decisions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23 (19), 437-456.
McGrath, R. 2012. How the Growth Outliers Do It. Harvard Business Review, 90, 110-116.
Melnyk, S. A., Hanson, J.D. and Calantone, R.J. (2010) Hitting the Target…but Missing the Point:
Resolving the Paradox of Strategic Transition. Long Range Planning, 43 (4), 555-574.
77
Menzel, H.C., Aaltio, I. and Ulijn, J. (2007). On the way to creativity: Engineers as intrapreneurs in
organizations. Technovation. 27 (12), 732-743.
Merchant , K . A. (1985) Organizational Controls and Discretionary Program Decision Making: A Field
Study. Accounting Organizations and Society, 10 (1), 67 – 85.
Meyer, C. (1994) How the Right Measures Help Teams Excel. Harvard Business Review, 72, 95–103.
Micheli, P. and J.-F. Manzoni (2010) Strategic Performance Measurement: Benefits, Limitations and
Paradoxes. Long Range Planning, 43 (4), 465-476.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J.B and Goshal, S. (1998) The strategy process: concepts, contexts and cases,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mohrman, S.A, Gibson, C.B. and Mohrman, A.M., Jr. (2001) Doing research that is useful to practice.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 347-375.
Mouritsen,J., (1998) Driving Growth: Economic Value Added versus Intellectual Capital,Management
Accounting Reserach vol. 9, pp.461-482.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., and Strange, J. M. (2002) Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly. 13(6), 705–730.
Mumford, M. D. and Licuanan, B. (2004) Leading for innovation: Conclusions, issues, and directions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 163-171.
Mumford, M.D. (2000) Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource
Management Review, 10(3), 313-351.
Mundy, J. (2010) Creating dynamic tensions through a balanced use of management control systems.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35 (5), 499-523.
Murray, P. and Blackman, D. (2006) Managing innovation through social architecture, learning, and
competencies: a new conceptual approach. Knowledge and Process Management, 13 (3), 132-143.
Narduzzo, A., Rocco, E. and Warglien, M. (2000) Talking about routines in the field, in Dosi,G., Nelson, R
andWinter, S. (eds), The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, pp., 27-50, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Richards, H., Gregory, M., Bourne, M. and Kennerly, M. (2000) Performance
measurement system design: developing and testing a process-based approach. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 20 (10), 1119-1145.
Neely, A. and Al Najjar, M. (2006) Management Learning Not Management Control: The True Role of
Performance Measurement. California Management Review, 48 (3), 101–14.
Nembhard, I. M., Cherian, P. and Bradley, E. H. (2014) Deliberate Learning in Health Care: The Effect of
Importing Best Practices and Creative Problem Solving on Hospital Performance Improvement.
Medical Care Research and Review, 71 (5), 450-471.
Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. G. (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press.
Nijssen, E.J., Hillebrand, B., Vermeulen, P. and Kemp, R. (2006) Exploring Product and Service
Innovation Similarities and Differences. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (3), 241–251.
78
Noda, T. and Bower, J. L. (1996) Strategy Making as Iterated Processes of Resource Allocation. Strategic
Management Journal, 17, 159-192.
Nonaka, I. (1991) The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69 (6), 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1),
14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Konno, N. (2000) SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic
Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33 (1), 5-34.
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2002) A firm as a dialectic being:towards a dynamic theory of a firm,
Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (5), 995-1009.
Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G. and Voelpel, S. (2006) Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionray
paths and future advances, Organization Studies, 27(8), 1179-1208.
O’Connor, G. C. and DeMartino, R. (2006) Organizing for Radical Innovation: An Exploratory Study of the
Structural Aspects of RI Management Systems in Large Established Firms. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 23 (6), 475-497.
O'Connor, G. C. (2008) Major Innovation as a Dynamic Capability: A Systems Approach, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 25 (4), 313-330.
Ojanen, V. and Vuola, O. (2006) Coping with the Multiple Dimensions of R&D Performance Analysis.
International Journal of Technology Management, 33(2-3), 279–290.
Orlikowski, W.J. (2000) Using Technology and Constituting Structures. Organization Science. 11 (4),
404–428
Ouchi, W. G. (1979) A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms.
Management Science, 25(9), 833- 848.
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D.L., and
Wallace, A.M. (2005) Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices,
productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26 (4), 379-408.
Pavlov, A. and Bourne, M. (2011) Explaining the Effects of Performance Measurement on Performance: An
Organizational Routines Perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
31(1), 101–22.
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. (2005) Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 14 (5), 793–815.
Peters, T. (1997) A skunkworks tale. In: R. Katz, ed. 1997. The Human Side of Managing Technological
Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Poskela, J. and Martinsuo, M. (2009) Management Control and Strategic Renewal in the Front End of
Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26 (6), 671-684.
79
Quinn, J. (1985) Managing Innovation: Controlled Chaos: Big companies stay innovative by behaving like
small entrepreneurial ventures, Harvard Business Review,63 (3) , 73–84.
Roos, J., Victor, B., and Statler, M. (2004) Playing Seriously with Strategy. Long-Range Planning, 37(6),
549-568.
Seitjs, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K. and Brandon, W. L. (2004) Goal Setting and Goal Orientation: An
Integration of Two Different Yet Related Literatures. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 227239.
Sherer, S. A., Kohli, R. and Baron, A. (2003) Complementary Investment in Change Management and IT
Investment Payoff. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(3), 321-333.
Schneier,C.E (1995) Capitalizing on performance management, recognition and rewards systems.
Performance measurement, management and appraisal sourcebook. Ed. By Shaw, D.G, Schneier, E..C.,
Beatty, R.W., Lloyd, S.B., publ. Human Resource Development Press, Inc. Amherst, MA.
Shalley, C.E. (1991) Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals and personal discretion on individual
creativity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179-185.
Shani, A. B. and Coghlan, D. (2014) Collaborate With Practitioners: An Alternative Perspective A
Rejoinder to Kieser and Leiner (2012). Journal of Management Inquiry, 23, 433-437.
Silverman, D. (2011) Interpreting Qualitative Data, 4th ed. London: Sage.
Simons, R. (1990) The Role of Management Control Systems in Creating Competitive Advantage: New
Perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15 (1-2), 127–143
Simons, R. (1995) Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic
Renewal. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Sitkin, S.B. (1992) Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management
Review, 17 (1-2), 9-38.
Sitkin, S. B., See, K. E., Miller, C. C., Lawless, M. W. and Carton, A. M. (2011) The Paradox of Stretch
Goals: Organizations in Pursuit of the Seemingly Impossible. Academy of Management Review, 36 (3),
544-566.
Sitkin, S.B. and Roth, N.R. (1993) Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for
trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4 (3), 367-392.
Snell, S. A. and Youndt, M. A. (1995) Human resource management and firm performance: Testing a
contingency model of executive controls. Journal of Management, 21 (4), 711-737.
Smeds, R. and Haho, P. (2003) Bottom-up or top-down? Evolutionary change management in NPD
processes. International Journal of Technology Management. 26 (8), 887-902.
Smith, K.M. (2005) Measuring Innovation. In Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C. and Nelson, R.R. (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 148–717
80
Steiber, A. and Alänge, S. (2013). A corporate system for continuous innovation: The case of Google Inc.,
European Journal of Innovation Management, 15 (2), 243-264.
Tang, H. K. (1998) An integrative model of innovation in organizations. Technovation, 18 (5), 297-309
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18 (7), 509-533.
Teece, D. J. (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal. 28(13), 1319-1350.
Thomke, S. (2001) Enlightened experimentation: The new imperative for innovation, Harvard Business
Review, 79 (2), 67-75.
Tidd, J. (2001) Innovation Management in Context: Environment, Organization and Performance.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 169–83.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks. The
Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.
Tsoukas, H. (1996) The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A Constructionist Approach. Strategic
Management Journal. 17, 11–25.
Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1996) Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and
Revolutionary Change. California Management Review. 38 (4), 8-30.
Tushman, M.L., P.C. Anderson, and C. O’Reilly (1997) Technology cycles, innovation streams,and
ambidextrous organizations: organizational renewal through innovation streams and strategic change, in:
Tushman, M.L., and P. Anderson (eds.) Managing Strategic Innovation and Change, A Collection of
Readings, Oxford University Press: New York: 3-23.
Tushman, M and Nadler, D (1986) Organising for innovation, California Management Review, 28 (3),
74–88.
Tushman, Michael L., Smith, Wendy K., Wood, Robert C., Westerman, George and O’Reilly, Charles A.
(2007). Organizational designs and innovation streams. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 2007.
van de Ven, A. (1986) Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science. 32 (5),
590-607.
Van de Ven, A., Angle, H. and Poole, S.M. (eds.) (1989) "Research on the Management of Innovation: The
Minnesota Studies", New York: Ballinger Publishing/Harper and Row.
Van de Ven, A. H., and Johnson. P. E. (2006) Knowledge for science and practice. Academy of
Management Review 31 (4), 802–21.
von Hippel, E. (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management science, 32 (7), 791805.
von Krogh, G., K. Ichijo, et al. (2000). Enabling Knowledge Creation. New York, Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G. and Voelpel, S. (2006) Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory: Evolutionary
Paths and Future Advances. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1179-1208.
81
Wagner, K., Taylor, A., Zablit, H. and Foo, E. (2014) The most innovative companies 2014: Breaking
through is hard to do, Boston Consulting Group.
Weick, K. E. (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.
Weick, K. E. (1998) Improvisation as a Mindset. Organization Science, 9(5) 543-555.
Weick, K.E. (1979) Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E. (2001) Making sense of the organization. Oxford: Blackwell.
West, M. A., and Anderson, N. (1992) Innovation, cultural values and the management of change in British
hospitals. Work and Stress. 6 (3), 293–310
Widener, S-K. (2007) An Empirical Analysis of the Levers of Control Framework. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 32 (7-8), 757–88.
Winter, S.G. and Szulanski, G. (2001), Replication as strategy. Organization Science. 12(6), 730-743.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E., (2003) Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Management Science,
49 (4), 514-528.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities,
Organization Science, 13(3), 339-353.
Zollo, M. and Singh, H. (2004) Deliberate learning in corporate acquisitions: post-acquisition strategies
and integration capability in US bank mergers. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1233-1256.
82
Appendix
Interview guides
All interviews were initiated with a short description of the purpose of the study, the overall structure of
the interview and information about how interview data will be handled in terms of confidentiality. All
interviews ended with an invitation to the interviewee to bring up additional information of relevance to
the study along with making a request for further contact if the interviewee or the researcher(s) would
have any supplementary questions in the future.
Study 1.
1. What is the function of your organization?
2. What is success for your organization?
a. Can you give examples on when your organization has been successful?
3. What do you perceive are the most important success factors for your organization?
4. How do you know if your organization is successful?
5. Describe how you are making use of performance measurement?
a. What is measured? Who is measuring? How frequent?
6. What is the purpose of measuring performance?
a. Does it differ depending on the metrics in use?
7. Who collects, analyzes and communicates the measurement data?
a. Does it differ between the metrics in use?
8. Who requests the result from the performance measurement analysis? Why?
9. What metric(s) is most important? Why?
10. What would you like to measure? Why?
a. What is hindering you from measuring this today?
11. What support would you like to have related to performance measurement?
12. What is innovation for you?
13. How important is innovation for your organization?
a. Can you provide examples when innovation has played an important role?
14. How do you carry out your innovation work?
15. What works good and what would you like to improve in your innovation work?
16. What is your innovation work expected to generate?
17. Who evaluates your organization’s innovation work?
a. Who requests its outcomes?
18. Is your organization measured according to how innovative you are?
a. If yes, what is measured?
b. Who requests the result from these measurements?
19. Describe how you are making use of innovation measurement?
a. What is measured? Who is measuring? How frequent?
20. What is the purpose of measuring innovation?
a. Does it differ depending on the metrics in use?
21. Who collects, analyzes and communicates the measurement data?
a. Does it differ between the metrics in use?
83
22. Who requests the result from the innovation measurement analysis? Why?
23. What metric(s) is most important? Why?
24. What would you like to measure? Why?
a. What is hindering your from measuring this today?
25. What support would you like to have related to innovation measurement?
26. Can you provide examples when measuring innovation has played a role?
27. How are individuals evaluated related to innovation in your organization?
28. What incentives are in use for individuals in relation to innovation in your organization?
29. What is (your, if manager) managers role in the innovation work?
a. What are the most important functions of managers in the innovation work?
b. Can you give examples on when (you, if manager) managers have played a role in the
innovation work?
30. In what way are you collaborating with others in your or in other organizations within the
company in innovation?
a. What works good and what would you like to change in this collaboration?
31. Describe the other innovation roles in your innovation work.
32. What are other employee’s roles in innovation?
33. What support in relation to innovation do you perceive that your organization is in most need of?
Study 2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Describe how you are performing environmental scanning.
a. When, how often, what activities, with whom?
b. How do you perform environmental scanning in your group/team?
Please, share your personal experiences related to the environmental scanning activities and tools.
a. Please, provide examples on activities/tools that you find stimulating.
b. Please, provide examples on activities/tools that you find frustrating.
How have you developed as an environmental scout (alt. as a user of environmental information
if a manager)?
a. Have you gradually developed or in relation to certain occasion? Please, give examples.
b. What steps have you taken in order to develop as an environmental scout (alt. as a user of
environmental information if a manager)?
c. What new insights on how you work or need to perform as an environmental scout have
you gained?
What are the reasons or motivation for you to work as an environmental scout? (alt. making use
of environmental scanning information if a manager)
How important do you consider the environmental scanning work is?
In what way has the environmental scanning supported you in your role as a developer or
manager? (Ex. legitimizes spending time on learning, stimulating idea generation, increased
knowledge, new relationsship, career etc.)
What in the environmental scanning process do you consider has been most useful? (personally,
for your group, for the organization etc.)
a. In what way?
What in the environmental scanning process do you consider has been least useful? (personally,
for your group, for the organization etc.)
a. In what way?
84
9. How does environmental scanning differ from other ways to build knowledge that you use?
a. What kind of knowledge is created?
10. In what way do you consider the environmental scanning process and tool respectively act as a
support for learning and innovation? Please, give examples.
11. In what way do you consider the environmental scanning process and tool respectively act as a
barrier for learning and innovation? Please, give examples.
12. What new knowledge or new insights have you gained from being part of the environmental
scanning process? (In relation to your scanning area, other areas, the company and its strategies,
the industry etc.)
a. Do you have any examples on specific occasions when you achieved new knowledge or
new insights? Please, give examples.
13. What activities in the environmental process have contributed to increased understanding for the
company and its strategies? (For managers: in what way has the environmental scanning
information meant a support for your strategy work?)
a. Has the environmental scanning provided some direct effect in your work? If so, what
effects? (ex. new ideas, solved problems in ongoing projects, new colleagues, structure,
motivator for newthinking, support in the development of strategies)
14. In what way has the environmental scanning changed your way of working?
15. Has it given you any new ideas on how you think about problem solving, work methods, new
ideas, how to collaborate, strategy work, creativity, structure?)
16. What and how often have your received feedback on your environmental scanning results?
a. From who?
b. How did you experience this feedback?
17. In what way is your role as an environmental scout reflected in your performance evaluation? (For
managers; how do you evaluate your employees as an environmental scout? In what way are you
evaluated as a manager considering your ability in bringing relevant environmental scanning
information?)
18. How would you like to change the environmental scanning process? Why?
Study 3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Which organization do you represent?
What is your role in your organization?
What are the deliverables of your organization?
What are the key characteristics of your organization (background of the people working, size,
working closely together or not, agile teams etc.?)
5. What is innovation in your organization?
6. What are the reasons behind that your organization is found to score high in Innovation Index?
a. What actions have you taken to be innovative?
b. How is your innovation work organized?
7. What kind of results have come out of your innovation work? Give examples.
8. The innovation index is constituted of three issues concerning your organization i) Openness to
new ways of thinking; ii) Transforming market insights into new offerings; iii) Encouragement to
come up with improved ways of doing things.
85
a.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Please, reflect on specific actions that you have or your organization has taken, to secure
these issues? Reflect on each one.
b. What would you advice others to do?
What in your culture do you think is of particular importance to support innovation? Please, give
examples.
What of your working processes do you think is of particular importance to support innovation?
Please, give examples.
What in your ways of managing resources do you think is of particular importance to support
innovation? Please, give examples.
Do you have any personal guiding principle that you think have contributed to your innovation
performance?
Study 4.
1. Describe your organization and your role in the organization.
2. What is innovation to you?
3. Describe how you carry out innovation work in your organization.
a. What activities are performed?
b. By who, when, how?
c. Have there been any changes the last two years?
d. If yes, what has changed? Why?
e. What actions or activities do you consider to have been most important? Why?
4. How do innovation activities differ from other R&D activities performed in your organization?
5. Describe how your innovation work is organized.
a. Specific roles, board, days, amount of time, collaborations etc.?
b. Have there been any changes the last two years?
c. If yes, what has changed? Why?
6. What are the reasons to why your organization is working with innovation?
a. How is the reason for why innovating communicated in the organization?
b. What documents are available to support this?
c. How has this documentation been developed and communicated?
d. By who, when, how?
e. Have these reasons or the way it is communicated changed during the last two years?
f. If yes, what has changed? Why?
7. What outcome is your innovation work expected to generate?
a. How do you find out what your organization is expected to generate?
b. What documents are available to support this?
c. How has this documentation been developed and communicated?
d. By who, when, how?
e. Has this changed during the last two years?
f. If yes, what has changed? Why?
8. How do you identify what actions to take?
a. What documents are available?
b. How has this documentation been developed and communicated?
c. By who, when, how?
86
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
d. Has this changed during the last two years?
e. If yes, what has changed? Why?
How do you identify how much time and resources you need to achieve what you are expected to
generate?
a. What documents are available?
b. How has this documentation been developed and communicated?
c. By who, when, how?
d. Has this changed during the last two years?
e. If yes, what has changed? Why?
How do you find out what your organization has achieved?
a. What documents are available?
b. How has this documentation been developed and communicated?
c. By who, when, how?
d. Has this changed during the last two years?
e. If yes, what has changed? Why?
Describe what your organization has achieved with your innovation work and what actions are
related to a certain outcome (if possible).
Do you classify or categorize your outcomes in any way? For instance whether ideas generated are
more or less novel, whether you have identified new solutions or identified new needs, what
capabilities you have built/improved etc..
a. By who, when, how?
b. Has this changed during the last two years?
c. If yes, what has changed? Why?
What in your innovation work is well-functioning?
a. What are the reasons behind?
b. Has this changed the last two years?
c. If yes, what has changed? Why?
d. Does this differ in different parts of the organization?
e. If yes, please give examples.
What in your innovation work is not well-functioning?
a. What are the reasons behind?
b. Has this changed the last two years?
c. If yes, what has changed? Why?
d. Does this differ in different parts of the organization?
e. If yes, please give examples.
87
Appended papers
88
89